Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF AVIATION

HS681 Transport Aircraft

Mr. McMaster: asked the Minister of Aviation what proportion of work on the HS681 transport aircraft is now to be sub-contracted to Short Bros. and Harland.

The Minister of Aviation (Mr. Julian Amery): It will be a substantial proportion, but I cannot be more specific until the detailed planning of the work is complete.

Mr. McMaster: Is my right hon. Friend aware that while his visit last week to Short Bros. and Harland is welcomed, and while I welcome the amount of work placed there by the Government, anxiety is still felt by that firm, particularly concerning design? Will my right hon. Friend do all he can to ensure that sufficient design work is placed with Short Bros. and Harland to ensure a balanced production unit there in the years to come?

Mr. Amery: I am well aware of my hon. Friend's anxieties and those of Short's. What I can say at this stage is that Short's will share in the construction of the development batch of the HS681 aircraft as well as of the subsequent production batch.

DC3 Aircraft (Replacement)

Mr. McMaster: asked the Minister of Aviation what discussions he has had with Short Bros. and Harland regarding the development and construction of a twin jet, 40-seat passenger aircraft which could replace the DC3 in airline service; and what decision he has taken.

Mr. Amery: Short Bros. and Harland have given my Department a preliminary brochure about this project. The company is now working out its plans in more detail. I understand that it may put some proposals to me shortly.

Mr. McMaster: In thanking my right hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask whether he is aware of the wide potential market for an aircraft of this type and whether he will do all he can to expedite the work of his Department so that a speedy decision may be reached on this project?

Mr. Amery: I have not yet seen a comprehensive estimate of market studies, but projects of a somewhat similar character are planned by other manufacturers. We shall certainly await with great interest any proposals that Short Bros. and Harland make to us.

Air Traffic Control Assistants

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Minister of Aviation what educational requirements his Department makes for male and female air traffic control assistants, respectively.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Aviation (Mr. Neil Marten): I have sent the hon. and learned Member a copy of the relevant requirements. The rules are the same for both men and women.

Mr. Hughes: Does the Minister realise that the United Kingdom is rich in the various melodious ways of speaking the English language and that his prejudice against the beautiful, harmonious Scottish accent is unworthy of him and is an instance of race discrimination on his part? Will he change this and see that justice is done to Scottish applicants for posts such as those mentioned in the Question?

Mr. Marten: Whatever one might think of the merits of the melodies of the Scottish language, I assure the hon. and learned Member that there is no melodious discrimination and that an essential requirement is that a candidate should have O-level qualification in English—I repeat, in English.

Mr. Rankin: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that, save for one or two


parts of the Highlands of Scotland, the Scottish language is English?

Sir Knox Cunningham: Would my hon. Friend think of asking the hon. and learned Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes) to substitute an Irish accent?

Mr. Speaker: The Minister cannot ask questions of Members.

B.E.A. and B.O.A.C. (Aviation Kerosene)

Mr. Lubbock: asked the Minister of Aviation how much was spent by British European Airways and the British Overseas Airways Corporation, respectively, during their last financial year on aviation kerosene.

Mr. Marten: In the financial year 1963–64, B.O.A.C. spent £12,483,505 and B.E.A. spent £4,854,000 on aviation kerosene.

Mr. Lubbock: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that these figures show that fuel costs represent a large proportion of the Corporations' operating expenditure? Does he not further agree, in view of the report in 1962 on the relative safety of aviation kerosene and J.P.4, that it is most unfortunate that our nationalised Corporations should be at a disadvantage compared with their foreign competitors by reason of the fact that they use this safer fuel? What additional measures is he taking beyond referring this report to I.C.A.O. to make sure that foreign operators coming into this country use the safer fuel?

Mr. Marten: It is largely a matter for the airlines concerned. We have, however, as the hon. Member said, referred the question to the I.C.A.O. British airlines in fact use very little J.P.4. B.O.A.C. spent only £6,000 on it in the financial year 1963–64 and B.E.A. used none at all. If use were to increase we should have to look at the regulations.

Mr. Lubbock: Would the hon. Gentleman appreciate that what I am asking him to do is to use his influence with I.C.A.O. to see that foreign operators also use the safer fuel so that our Corporations are not at a disadvantage compared with their competitors?

Mr. Marten: We have endeavoured to use our influence but have not been successful.

Concord Aircraft

Mr. Pounder: asked the Minister of Aviation what steps have been taken, or are envisaged, regarding the subcontracting of design work in connection with the Concord project to British aircraft concerns other than the British Aircraft Corporation.

Mr. Amery: There are no plans to sub-contract work on the design of the airframe. In many cases, however, subcontracts to other firms for the supply of equipment will involve design work.

Mr. Pounder: While thanking my right hon. Friend for that Answer, may I ask him whether he would agree, particularly in the light of his recent visit to the Belfast aircraft factory—which visit was very much appreciated—and in view of the very large sums of Government money being poured into the Concord project, that there may be a case, either now or at some stage in the future, for some sub-contracting of design work to the firm, bearing in mind particularly what my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster) said just now about the acknowledged need for retaining a design team?

Mr. Amery: I am sure that my hon. Friend will appreciate that the essential thing with the Concord is to get on with it quickly in view of possible foreign competition and that any subdivision of design work could lead to delay.

Mr. Brockway: asked the Minister of Aviation which town in South-East England has been selected as an experimental area to judge the effect of the noise and reverberation of the sound-barrier-breaking Concord airliner on the physical and psychological reactions of the population.

Mr. Marten: No decision to carry out an exercise of this kind has been made.

Mr. Brockway: May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether, when a decision is reached, he will arrange for soundproofing of hospitals, schools, old


people's homes, and houses immediately under the route, and secondly, whether he can dispel the rumour that the town of Slough, which is the nearest town west of London Airport, and is on the Atlantic route, is being made a guinea pig for this experiment?

Mr. Marten: No decision has been arrived at. The article in the Press, which I did see and to which I think the hon. Member is referring, was lacking in strict accuracy. The proposal for soundproofing is a different question, and if the hon. Member will put down a question about it I will endeavour to answer it.

Mr. Speir: In this connection, may I ask my hon. Friend who it is in his Department who authorises the breaking of the sound barrier, and what control there is over the sound barrier not being broken without permission?

Mr. Marten: I authorise the breaking of the sound barrier, and I can assure my hon. Friend that it is not broken by any aircraft under our control without permission.

Mr. Costain: Does my hon. Friend realise that the article in the Press has caused concern to towns on the southeast coast, and will he give an assurance that before any experiments are likely to be carried out, plenty of notice will be given to those concerned?

Mr. Marten: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Lee: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that some of us would not agree that there was any question of permitting a guinea pig operation on any town in Britain? In a comparatively small island in which towns are so closely interconnected, it would be a very different proposition from Oklahoma or places of that sort. Will he give an undertaking that there will be no question of any town being made a guinea pig in this respect?

Mr. Marten: No, Sir.

Sir L. Heald: asked the Minister of Aviation what progress has now been made with the Concord project; when the first aircraft is due to fly; and if he will make a statement.

Sir B. Janner: asked the Minister of Aviation what is the present estimated

date by which he expects the Concord aircraft to be in commercial service; and what is the present state of firm orders for this aircraft.

Mr. Cronin: asked the Minister of Aviation if he will make a further statement on the progress of the Concord project.

Mr. Amery: The first flight of the Concord is expected in 1967. Entry into airline service is forecast for 1971. Provisional orders for the Concord so far number 43. The British and French Governments have approved the modifications to the original design proposed by the Companies on 6th May. These provide for the up-rating of the engine and extension of the wing area and will result in increased range and payload.
I have of course kept in close touch with the development work on the Concord in this country. I have also recently visited, in company with M. Jacquet, the French Minister of Transport, the works of Sud Aviation, the main contractor for the French share of the airframe, and of SNECMA, which is contributing to the development of the Olympus 593 engine.
Co-operation between the French and British teams is excellent. The development programme is proceeding according to plan. The House will wish to know that an experimental version of the Olympus 593 engine had its first run at the weekend three months ahead of schedule.

Sir L. Heald: I thank my right hon. Friend for that interesting and encouraging statement. Does he agree that if Britain is to be in a position to take full advantage of the opportunities for world leadership in aviation which will be provided by the Concord development, the essential condition is the continued existence of a British aircraft industry which is strong, prosperous and, above all, confident? Will he keep this important consideration before his colleagues, particularly during the discussions about the future of the VC10?

Mr. Amery: I assure my right hon. and learned Friend that these considerations are not only very much in my mind but also in the minds of my colleagues.

Mr. Cronin: Is there not some evidence that the original figures given by the right hon. Gentleman for the Concord project were a grievous underestimate? Could not he, either now or at an early opportunity, give revised figures for the total cost of the project and for our share in it?

Mr. Amery: There can be no doubt that the modifications the two Governments have agreed to will considerably increase the cost of the Concord. The figures I have are that the estimate will rise to about £140 million for the United Kingdom.

Mr. Longhlin: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us how many aircraft it will be necessary to have ordered in order to make this project anything like an economic proposition? Is he satisfied that the French nationalised aircraft industry is efficient enough to carry this project through?

Mr. Amery: I have no criticisms to make of our French colleagues, who are working admirably and closely with us. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford (Sir. W. Churchill) once remarked, the Almighty did not see fit to make Frenchmen in the image of Englishmen, so perhaps we proceed by different paths to the same objective.

Mr. Loughlin: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer my question? I asked him whether he could give an estimate of the number of Concords required to be ordered to make the project an economic proposition.

Mr. Amery: This will, of course, depend on the price ultimately charged. The present concept is that the cost will be about £5 million an aircraft.

Mr. Cronin: When did the right hon. Gentleman know of the new estimate which is nearly double the one he previously gave?

Mr. Amery: When the French Minister and I finally reviewed and agreed the modifications last weekend.

Ferranti Contract (Lang Committee's Report)

Mr. A. Lewis: asked the Minister of Aviation when he now expects to receive the Lang Committee Report on the

Ferranti contract; and whether he will ask for an interim report to be made available to enable a debate to take place, as the full report is not likely to be available before the summer recess.

Mr. Amery: As I told the House on 3rd June, Sir John Lang is producing an interim report. Our object in asking Sir John Lang to split the report in this way was to allow time for the House to discuss it.

Mr. Lewis: Yes, but can we be given an assurance by the Minister, in view of the scandal which has now been announced about the withdrawal of the Bloodhound, that ample opportunity will be given for a debate on this interim report before the House goes up for this Summer Recess and that there will not be, as on past occasions when there have been such Government scandals, an announcement made after the House has got up?

Mr. Amery: I really do not understand the hon. Member's reference to a scandal about the withdrawal of the Bloodhound. Bloodhound I has given good service for a number of years. Bloodhound II is the most successful missile of its kind produced in this or indeed any other country, and it has been bought by two of the most objective customers, Sweden and Switzerland, who are under no pressure to buy British, American or anything else.

Mr. Lee: Can the right hon. Gentleman give a guarantee that the interim report will be presented to this Parliament?

Mr. Amery: I cannot guarantee, because I am not writing the report, but this was the object of calling for an interim report.

Mr. Wigg: Would the Minister give the House an assurance that at least the House will have an opportunity to see the Report before it is leaked to Mr. Chapman Pincher?

B.O.A.C. (Accumulated Deficit)

Mr. Rankin: asked the Minister of Aviation whether he will now consider taking steps to relieve the British Overseas Airways Corporation of their obligations in regard to the accumulated deficit, in view of the finding of the


Select Committee on Nationalised Industries in paragraph 328 of its recent Report; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Amery: Perhaps the hon. Member would await the statement I hope to make in any debate there may be on the Select Committee's Report.

Mr. Rankin: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we have waited for a long while, and can he this afternoon give us a little encouragement and an indication of what his attitude is? Does he agree with the Select Committee's contention that there can be no financial reality in B.O.A.C.'s returns till this legacy of the past is removed? Does he think it must be removed at some time or another? Does he not think that now is the right time to do so?

Mr. Amery: I will, naturally, consider carefully the views the hon. Member has expressed, but, frankly, I think that these are very complex matters not easily dealt with by Question and Answer. When the time comes to debate the Select Committee's Report, this will be the time at which to express the Government's view.

B.E.A. and B.OA.C. Employees (Day Release)

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Minister of Aviation how many persons between the ages of 15 to 18 years are employed by British European Airways and the British Overseas Airways Corporation, respectively; and how many are granted day release.

Mr. Marten: I understand that 362 are employed by British European Airways and 343 by the British Overseas Airways Corporation. Of these, 120 and 117 respectively are granted either single day release or release in connection with, for example, sandwich courses.

Mr. Dalyell: Though these are relatively satisfactory figures, is there not a case for making day release compulsory?

Mr. Marten: I agree that these are relatively satisfactory figures, but I do not think that the supplementary question which the hon. Member poses arises out of this Question.

Charter Flights

Mr. Dempsey: asked the Minister of Aviation if he will take steps to regulate the operations of companies offering chartered flights, and to protect passengers from companies which fail to carry out the services for which they have been paid.

Mr. Marten: Charter flights undertaken by aircraft on the British or Colonial register are regulated by the Air Transport Licensing Board under the Civil Aviation (Licensing) Act, 1960. Those undertaken by other aircraft are regulated by the Ministry of Aviation under the Air Navigation Order, 1960.
As regards the second part of the Question, I have nothing to add to my reply to the hon. Member on 18th February, 1963.

Mr. Dempsey: Yes, but is the hon. Gentleman aware that since then there has been considerable dissatisfaction as a result of the uncertainty about these flights taking place? Does he realise that we have had several complaints from people travelling from the County of Lanark? Did he notice the incident which occurred at Prestwick as recently as the beginning of last week, when people were kept all day and practically all night on the plane and off the plane before their fears were put to rest and at last the flight was able to take place? Ought not the general public to have some protection against those types of people and incidents?

Mr. Marten: The fact is that the general public have their legal rights of contract under whatever term they book their passage. But failure to carry out flights may derive from circumstances outside the control of the carrier—for example, safety considerations, or even strikes.

Mr. Cronin: Is it not the case, though, that the right hon. Gentleman has allowed an enormous increase in charter flights without proper conditions for safeguarding against variations of these charter flights so far as the general public are concerned?

Mr. Marten: No.

Aerodrome, Middleton St. George

Mr. W. T. Rodgers: asked the Minister of Aviation what difficulties now exist regarding the final transfer of Middleton St. George to civilian use; and by what date he anticipates it will be fully operational.

Mr. Marten: Middleton St. George became a civil aerodrome on 18th April when the Ministry of Aviation took over responsibility for its operation from the Ministry of Defence. The aerodrome is to be sold to the local authorities, as soon as a price is agreed.
Middleton St. George has continued to be available for private aircraft and should be fully operational and capable of taking scheduled services in the autumn.

Mr. Rodgers: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is a good deal of public concern about the apparent difficulties which have arisen over the administration of the new airport, and while the local authorities are moving forward as fast as they can reasonably be expected to do, would he consider the possibility of offering some administrative help if any further delays occur which would prevent scheduled services from starting in the autumn? Also, would he confirm that there has been no variation in the price at which the aerodrome was originally offered to the local authorities?

Mr. Marten: With regard to the second part of the supplementary question, I think I can confirm that. As regards the first part, staff are being recruited and equipment installed to ensure that, when the airline operators are expected to run scheduled services, the aerodrome will be suitably equipped to accommodate them. What is outstanding is the negotiation over the price, to establish the open market value of the property.

Airport Charges

Mr. Millan: asked the Minister of Aviation if he will make a statement on his discussions with the airlines and aerodrome owners, including local authorities, regarding his proposed new airport charges.

Mr. Amery: A statement was issued at the conclusion of a meeting which I

held with the airlines and aerodrome owners on 18th February. This stated that in the light of the representation then made I had decided to postpone the new arrangements until 1st November, 1964. I will with permission circulate the text in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Millan: What has happened since February? Has the right hon. Gentleman had discussions with the municipal airport owners? Is it not clear that the proposed new charges would have a very serious economic effect on municipal airports since they would lose the passenger service charges, would gain nothing from the technical service charges and would be inhibited from making an appropriate adjustment to their landing fees? In particular, do not the new charges very seriously change the economics of the proposed transfer of Abbots-inch Airport to Glasgow Corporation? Would the right hon. Gentleman say what discussions he has had with Glasgow Corporation in the matter?

Mr. Amery: We had full discussions in February and have had a number of consultations since then. We are receiving delegations from Manchester, Birmingham and Liverpool this month. I understand that they wish to discuss further the effect of the new charges. It is right that we should seek to recover the additional cost of the technical services. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not wish to continue the passenger service charge, which has been a tiresome irritant for a number of years.

Mr. Millan: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that one does not mind changes being made in the charges provided that they are not done at the expense of the municipal airport? Is he aware that the new proposals of the Ministry, which are a complete contradiction of the previous policy of imposing only a single landing fee, look rather like a device by the Ministry of Aviation to recover technical service charges not at the expense of the airline operators but at the expense of the municipal airport owners? That is what I am complaining about.

Mr. Amery: The hon. Gentleman has misunderstood the purport of our proposals. What we are seeking to do is to recover the technical service charges from the operators.

The Press statement was as follows:
The Minister of Aviation, Mr. Julian Amery, today met representatives of the British and Foreign Airlines, Municipal Authorities and other aerodrome owners to discuss proposed changes in airport charges, including the introduction of a new charge designed to cover the costs of Aerodrome Technical Services provided by the Ministry. The charges were announced last September and it was then proposed that they should be introduced on 1st April, 1964.
In the light of representations made at the meeting, in particular the difficulties that would be created for airlines and aerodrome owners if the charges were introduced on 1st April, the Minister has decided to postpone the new arrangements until 1st November, 1964.

Private Flying

Commander Courtney: asked the Minister of Aviation how many flying clubs are at present operating in the United Kingdom; and how this number compares with that recommended by the Special Advisory Committee on Private Flying in 1947.

Mr. Marten: The Committee envisaged that up to 100 clubs would be needed to provide adequate coverage of the country as a whole. At the latest count there were 116 flying clubs and 110 flying groups.

Commander Courtney: While welcoming what my hon. Friend has said, may I ask him if it is not a fact that this country is rather behindhand in its support of private and club flying compared with certain countries, notably France? Would he not agree that in France three times the number of clubs and private aircraft are registered compared with this country?

Mr. Marten: Yes, Sir. France and some other countries give substantial financial help to flying and gliding clubs, but it is for them to say whether the results justify it. We believe that, while the Government could, and should, do many things to help, the movement must pay its own way. It is also true that in the United States there is more private flying, but in making such comparisons one must take into account the many factors involved, such as distance, weather conditions and availability of other means of transport.

Mr. Snow: Before the war flying clubs were encouraged for reasons of national defence. Would the hon. Gentleman

say whether that type of consideration is maintained in the light of the technical advance of other weapons?

Mr. Marten: I am afraid that it is not.

Commander Courtney: asked the Minister of Aviation how many of the recommendations of the 1947 Special Advisory Committee on Private Flying have since been implemented in whole or in part; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Marten: The Government of the day found themselves unable to offer the extensive financial assistance to flying and gliding clubs recommended by the Committee. The clubs, I am glad to say, did not in the event close down as the Committee feared they would without extensive State assistance.

Commander Courtney: Does not that one fact show that the Socialist Administration of the day totally failed to carry out the promises given in 1947? Will my hon. Friend say that in the excellent years which I know he has ahead he will do something to right that state of affairs?

Mr. Marten: After the General Election we shall, of course, continue our policy of encouraging private flying. I think that the report prepared by the Labour Party must be regarded as an imaginative guide rather than a realistic blueprint.

VC10 Aircraft

Mr. Rankin: asked the Minister of Aviation what advice he gave to the British Overseas Airways Corporation regarding the cancellation of a number of VC10s they had ordered from the British Aircraft Corporation; how many aircraft are involved; what liability Her Majesty's Government are accepting for losses incurred by British Overseas Airways Corporation; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Diamond: asked the Minister of Aviation if he has now completed his discussions on the cancellation by the British Overseas Airways Corporation of part of the order for the VC10; and if he will make a statement on the amount of compensation to be paid for each cancelled aircraft.

Mr. Stonehouse: asked the Minister of Aviation what compensation he has approved to be paid to the British Aircraft Corporation for the reduction in the British Overseas Airways Corporation order for VC10 aircraft.

Mr. Cronin: asked the Minister of Aviation if he will make a statement with regard to the proposed cancellation of orders for VC10 aircraft by the British Overseas Airways Corporation.

Mr. Amery: I expect to make a statement shortly.

Mr. Rankin: Again, will not the right hon. Gentleman give us some encouragement as to what that statement may mean? Does he propose to accept the decision of his predecessors that 42 VC10 aircraft should be ordered, and, if so, does it mean that if losses occur in operation, he will help B.O.A.C. to meet them? In view of his interest in the industry and the need to safeguard it, can he assure B.A.C. that the 42 VC10s originally decided upon will now be ordered?

Mr. Amery: I will, naturally, take careful note of what the hon. Gentleman has said, all the more so in view of his own experience of and close association with the industry. I think it would be wrong to try to anticipate my statement, but, naturally, I stand by what I said in the directive that I gave to Sir Giles Guthrie, in which I asked him to run the airline on a commercial basis but said that if for any reason the Government wished to depart from commercial terms, they would have to accept responsibility for doing so.

Mr. Diamond: First, would the right hon. Gentleman say what he means by "shortly"? This is very relevant considering the likely duration of this Parliament. Secondly, is he aware that this continued unwillingness to stand up to the facts of the situation and grapple with it and reach a decision is causing the greatest damage to airlines, to aircraft manufacture and to the employees in the industry, and that nothing can be calculated to be more harmful than unwillingness to face up to his responsibilities as Minister?

Mr. Amery: By "shortly" I mean in plenty of time for the hon. Gentleman to

deliver the speech which I am sure is already cooking in his breast.

Mr. Stonehouse: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a great deal of public concern about this question and that his smart evasive answers are not good enough? Will he say whether he has reflected on the answer he gave in the House a week or so ago, and is he now prepared to confirm that he gave no direction in any form in regard to the original order that B.O.A.C. made for the VC10? Will he also say whether he accepts the principle of paying compensation to B.A.C. if the order is reduced?

Mr. Amery: In the first part of his supplementary question, the hon. Gentleman asked me off the cuff what direction, if any, was given about the original order. I was not there at the time, and, without consulting the records, I am not in a position to answer the question. If the hon. Gentleman would care to table a Question, I will do my best to answer it, if necessary in a written reply. As to the second part of the supplementary question, I prefer not to anticipate the statement that I shall be making shortly and any discussion of it which may follow.

Mr. Cronin: As the previous Chairman of B.O.A.C. said before the Estimates Committee that the excessive VC10 order was made under pressure, will the right hon. Gentleman in his statement make it quite clear who was responsible for the excessive order? Furthermore, as this appears to be the culmination of an uninterrupted series of blunders which have emerged from the Ministry of Aviation during the Minister's period of office, does he not agree that it is essential that we should have not only an early statement but an early debate so that the general public may be aware of the situation before the General Election?

Mr. Amery: Any question of a debate is a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House and not for me. What I have undertaken to do is to make an early statement, and that I shall do shortly, in plenty of time for the hon. Gentleman to make the speech to which I have referred. I do not necessarily accept the implication of what the hon. Gentleman has said, but I shall try to deal faithfully with the matter when the time comes.

Sir W. Robson Brown: When he is making up his mind on this matter, will my right hon. Friend give the greatest consideration to the effects that a wrong decision will have on the employment of many thousands of aircraft workers in the Weybridge aircraft works? Will he draw the attention of B.O.A.C. to the large posters spread all over London, and possibly all over England, which present the VC10 as triumphant, silent and serene? Will B.O.A.C. support what it says in its posters in its advice to him? Will he bear in mind that this is not a constituency matter, but a matter of grave concern to the future of the British aircraft industry's subsonic aircraft and the complete jeopardy of the long-term future of the industry itself?

Mr. Amery: I am sure that all concerned, in the Government, in the House, in B.O.A.C. and B.A.C., are well aware of the gravity of the issues at stake. Nobody doubts that the VC10 is an extremely fine aircraft and an outstanding long-range jet.

Mr. Lee: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the longer this matter goes on the greater the apprehension there will be in a vital industry and that the sooner he can resolve this problem the better? Although he may not be able to set a date on which to make his statement, can he at any rate relieve the apprehension, which may cost the jobs of many thousands of people, by giving an approximate date on which he will make his statement? Is he aware that many of us would like to see a very great aircraft preserved? Could he make his statement next week?

Mr. Amery: I would hope to be able to make it next week, but I would not wish to be committed to that. The hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do the difficulties of negotiation which sometimes occur in these matters. I agree that the delay can cause disquiet to a number of those concerned, but our prime interest must be to reach the right decision.

Mr. Rankin: On a point of order. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the right hon. Gentleman's reply, I shall try to raise the matter in the House as shortly as possible.

Mr. Diamond: asked the Minister of Aviation what advice was given by Her Majesty's Government to the British Overseas Airways Corporation regarding the size of the original order for the VC10; and what form this took.

Mr. Stonehouse: asked the Minister of Aviation what instructions were given by Her Majesty's Government to the British Overseas Airways Corporation about the order for the VC10; and to what extent factors other than commercial were taken into consideration in deciding the number of aircraft orders.

Mr. Amery: No advice or instruction was given to British Overseas Airways Corporation with regard to the VC10 order. This was presented by the Corporation to my predecessor as a commercial requirement.

Mr. Diamond: Does the right hon. Gentleman want us to accept that as a complete, full and frank answer which would differentiate somewhat from previous answers? Is he saying to us that no advice of any kind was given and that the Corporation was left completely unaware of the thinking of the Ministry at this time?

Mr. Amery: Any different shades of meaning which may be in the hon. Member's mind would be better discussed in full context rather than in question and answer. If we come to debate the Report of the Select Committee, that will be the time. The answer I have given is, to the best of my knowledge and understanding, fully accurate.

Mr. Stonehouse: Is the right hon. Member aware that, in the Report of the Select Committee, it is confirmed that a former Chairman of B.O.A.C. said that he was under strong pressure to order VC10s because of the Minister's interest in protecting B.A.C.? As this scandal is likely to out-Ferranti Ferranti, is he aware that the House will expect a far fuller account of the relations between B.O.A.C. and the Minister on this subject?

Mr. Amery: I gave my answer, of course, with full knowledge of what is said in the Report.

Mr. Cronin: Is it not the case that the Minister has to apply to the Treasury for loans to purchase aircraft and, under


Statute, must make out his case to the Treasury? Is he now saying that he made a case for loans for these aircraft without taking full responsibility for the desirability of the project?

Mr. Amery: That raises rather different issues but, again, we might ventilate them in the debate.

Sir H. d'Avigdor-Goldsmid: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, if he studies the evidence laid before the Select Committee, he will find nothing in it to support the allegation made by the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Stonehouse)?

Mr. Amery: indicated assent.

Stansted Airport

Mr. Gourlay: asked the Minister of Aviation when he intends to bring Stansted Airport into use as the third London airport; and when he expects the new access route to the airport to be started.

Mr. Amery: The Committee appointed to examine the need for a third airport to serve London estimated that this would be required by about 1973. The provision of the new motorway to Stansted is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport. I understand that it is hoped that work will start in 1968 or 1969.

Mr. Gourlay: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Aviation Traders intend to close one of the hangars at Stansted next September, which will cause the redundancy of some 90 skilled maintenance workers? Could he co-operate with the company concerned with a view to diverting some of the work from airfields which are understaffed to Stansted in order to retain this nucleus of highly-skilled manpower, and will he reconsider his decision and redevelop this airport at a much earlier date?

Mr. Amery: I have already had representations on these matters, notably from my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, but if the hon. Gentleman likes to add to them, I will certainly consider them. I am considering the others now.

Services (Remote Areas)

Mr. Dance: asked the Minister of Aviation what contribution his Department

makes to the provision of air services to remote areas of the country which would not otherwise be served by modern means of communication.

Mr. Marten: We provide airfields in the Scottish Highlands and Islands and in the Scilly Islands. Assistance has also been given indirectly by help with the development of aircraft suitable for use on feeder services or in less densely populated areas.

Mr. Dance: I thank my hon. Friend for that very helpful reply. How many modern aircraft are used on these services and roughly how many passengers a year travel on them?

Mr. Marten: On the Highlands and Islands route there is the Herald, into which the Government have put £1,100,000, and on the Scilly Isles route there is the S61 helicopter, which is costing the Government up to £75,000. About 6,000 people used the Scilly Isles service in the first six weeks of operation and B.E.A. estimates that about 40,000 people will use it over the whole year. In the past year about 129,000 people used the Highlands and Islands services.

Mr. Hector Hughes: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that the remote parts of the country mentioned in the Question include the north of Aberdeenshire, which is suffering from the ravages of Dr. Beeching's closures? What steps is he taking to ensure that communications in these areas are maintained as they have been heretofore?

Mr. Marten: I have every confidence that the right steps will be taken, because my right hon. Friend is going there next weekend.

Electronics (Research and Development)

Mr. Neave: asked the Minister of Aviation what contribution his Department is making to original research and development work in the electronics field, in order to improve the range and standard of equipment available for civil aviation purposes.

Mr. Amery: My Department's research and development establishments, in cooperation with industry, are devoting considerable effort to a wide range of civil


aviation problems. These include approach and landing guidance, long-range navigation, communications, ground data handling and processing systems, the application of automation to future air traffic control systems and the use of micro-electronics techniques for civil aviation equipments. My Department will also finance the greater part of the British share in the development of the Concord supersonic transport aircraft which will entail the development of a number of advanced electronic systems.

Mr. Neave: In view of the tremendous American challenge in this respect, is my right hon. Friend aware of the absolute necessity of having an adequate system to distribute research information from his Department to private industry?

Mr. Amery: Yes, Sir, very much so. The links with industry have been recently strengthened and we are very much aware of the need for the fullest dissemination of information. I am holding a conference on Friday of this week with the leaders of the electronics industry to consider this among other matters.

Mr. Fernyhough: What is the cost to public funds of this help?

Mr. Amery: I cannot answer offhand, but if the hon. Gentleman likes to put down a Question, I will do my best to answer it.

Automatic Landing Systems

Sir E. Errington: asked the Minister of Aviation what automatic blind-landing system is being developed; in what aircraft it is installed; and when it will be introduced on commercial passenger flights.

Mr. Amery: An automatic landing system has been developed by Messrs. Smiths (Aviation Division) in conjunction with the aircraft companies concerned for the Mk. 2 V-Bombers and Argosy aircraft of the Royal Air Force. Automatic landing systems for civil operations are being developed for the Trident, again by Messrs. Smiths with Hawker Siddeley, and for the VC10 by Messrs. Elliott Brothers with the British Aircraft Corporation. It is planned to begin using these civil systems on commercial passenger flights to suitably

equipped airports in 1967. But at that stage they will only be used in conditions of adequate visibility.
By 1969, we should have built up enough experience to undertake blind landing on passenger flights. A similar system will be installed in Belfast transport aircraft for the R.A.F. All these systems are based on work carried out by the Ministry of Aviation Blind Landing Experimental Unit at R.A.E., Bedford.

Sir E. Errington: I thank my right hon. Friend for that information. Is it correct that, in the foreseeable future, he hopes to standardise an automatic blind-landing system at the main British airfields and on commercial passenger lines?

Mr. Amery: It is naturally our hope to achieve standardisation and we are in touch with other Governments about this.

Mr. Rankin: Will the Ministry be responsible for installing the necessary equipment for landing these aircraft under blind-landing conditions at municipal airports?

Mr. Amery: That will be a matter for agreement and discussion with the airport owning authorities, wherever they may be.

Independent Airlines (Scheduled Services)

Sir E. Errington: asked the Minister of Aviation on how many routes the independent airlines have started scheduled services since the passing of the Air Transport Licensing Act; and how many of these are in competition with the nationalised corporations.

Mr. Marten: The independent airlines have started about 50 scheduled services in consequence of successful applications to the Air Transport Licensing Board. Of these nine are substantially competitive with B.E.A. and none with B.O.A.C.

Sir E. Errington: Is my hon. Friend satisfied that, as a result of such competition, better service to passengers is provided generally without undue waste of unused passenger accommodation?

Mr. Marten: Yes, Sir. I think it is true that better service has been provided and, interestingly enough, I think that B.E.A. is the first to admit it.

Mr. Lee: How does this figure compare with the number of licences granted? Will the hon. Gentleman explain why it is that the competition which was threatened to B.O.A.C. did not take place?

Mr. Marten: I am sorry, I do not quite understand.

Mr. Lee: Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House the number of flights or the number of routes independents are running and how this compares with the number of licences that have been granted? How many routes are they not running? The hon. Gentleman says there are no competitors to B.O.A.C. Does he recall that the then Minister told us some time ago that competition on the North Atlantic route could not be afforded and therefore we had the B.O.A.C.-Cunard link coming into existence to prevent it?

Mr. Marten: I have not the answers to those questions now. If the hon. Gentleman puts down a Question about the number of licence applications I will try to answer it.

Sir Knox Cunningham: Will my hon. Friend consider favourably further applications by British Eagle to run services between Belfast and London?

Mr. Marten: The question of applications is one which comes before the Board and as my right hon. Friend has the rôle of appeal here, I would not care to comment.

Mr. Lubbock: Is it not the case that the decisions of the Licensing Board on applications for licences by private airlines on parallel routes are completely arbitrary? Will he consider the request I made some time ago for the Government to take powers to issue a directive to the Board about the considerations it should follow in these matters?

Mr. Marten: I cannot agree that the Board's decisions are completely arbitrary and the answer to the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question is "No".

London-New York (Fares)

Mr. Dance: asked the Minister of Aviation if he will state the cost of the lowest available round-trip fares between London and New York for 1954 and 1964.

Mr. Marten: In 1954 the lowest fare was the tourist off-season return at £151 16s. In 1964 the lowest fare is an economy-class 14/21-day excursion fare of £107 3s.

Mr. Dance: May I ask my hon. Friend whether he is satisfied that enough publicity has been given to these obviously very good value flights? Can he say how many passengers took advantage of these lower prices during the period in question?

Mr. Marten: I think that the Corporations and the air companies advertise these flights sufficiently, and the ventilation of this question here will help. In real money terms the reduction in fares is even more striking, and passengers are travelling faster.

European Launcher Development Organisation

Mr. Neave: asked the Minister of Aviation what are the plans of the European Launcher Development Organisation for further development of the Organisation's launcher.

Mr. Amery: The European Launcher Development Organisation is carrying out certain studies in accordance with the provisions of its Convention. The object of these is to formulate proposals to member States for a further development programme beyond the initial programme.

Mr. Neave: Can my right hon. Friend say when he expects E.L.D.O. to come to a decision on its final proposals for a new launcher, and when the Government expect to have some national programme on the subject of space launchers and the need to create a space industry?

Mr. Amery: The organisation is due to put the proposals to the member States in the autumn. I think that the end of October is the official date, although I should not be surprised if it were delayed a few weeks beyond that.
With regard to the national space programme, we are at present spending about £12 million to £15 million a year on space, including a good deal on research and various feasibility studies. We are now considering whether there are any further steps which ought to be taken at the present time.

Supersonic Flights (Mid-Wales and Breconshire)

Mr. Watkins: asked the Minister of Aviation when flights to break the sound barrier will take place in Mid-Wales and southern Breconshire; and whether he will give directions that such experiments will not be in the vicinity of schools, hospitals, old people's homes and places where elderly people and children are congregated.

Mr. Marten: It is not possible to state precisely when these flights will take place. Flight paths are very carefully chosen so as to cause the minimum of disturbance and the aircraft are flown supersonically at high altitudes only. We have in the past had no complaints from schools, hospitals or old people's homes in this area.

Mr. Watkins: May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether he will give greater consideration to this matter because of the protests which have come in since my Question was tabled? There is widespread objection to this in the part of the Principality involved in these flights. Surely the hon. Gentleman could give greater consideration to what I have put down in my Question?

Mr. Marten: We always consider what the hon. Gentleman puts in Questions, but I am afraid that these flights must go on.

Mr. Speir: Can my hon. Friend say what he considers to be the correct altitude for supersonic flights? What does he mean by a "high" altitude?

Mr. Marten: Normally above 30,000 feet.

Mr. C. Hughes: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether the Minister for Welsh Affairs and the Council for Wales were consulted before this decision was taken?

Mr. Marten: I cannot say offhand.

Mr. Watkins: asked the Minister of Aviation whether, in view of the representations he received last year on aircraft breaking the sound barrier within the Counties of Brecon and Radnor, he will make arrangements to give notice to local authorities and in the local Press when such overland flights are to take place during the next 12 weeks.

Mr. Marten: As the timing of individual flights has to be arranged at very short notice, it would not be practicable to do this.

Mr. Watkins: May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether he will take a leaf out of the War Office's book? When the firing of ordinary guns takes place on Sennybridge range, notice is given to farmers. Surely the Ministry could give notice in the local Press of these flights? The information is required for the next 12 weeks. The Ministry should know whether these flights are to take place during the third week, the fifth week, or the seventh week, and surely it could give prior notice to local authorities and to the Press?

Mr. Marten: The firing of guns of that nature is simpler than flying supersonic jet aircraft because we are concerned with aircraft weapons, ground instrumentation, and the preparation of the aircraft itself, in addition to the weather, and sometimes these flights have to be made at a few hours' notice. But if the hon. Gentleman has any further cases like the one he had before, concerning one of his constituents, Mrs. Betty Sannon, we shall certainly do our best to meet her wishes about not frightening her pony.

Mr. S. O. Davies: Do we understand that the Minister and the Ministry are turning a contemptuous, deaf ear to the protests and appeals made by responsible individuals and responsible bodies in Wales, in particular the fanning and agricultural communities? Has not the hon. Gentleman received plenty of information which proves that these supersonic explosions have caused considerable harm to agricultural life in parts of Wales?

Mr. Marten: I think that the hon. Gentleman is misinformed about this. Over the last two years we have had 26 claims from the whole of Britain. Of


these about half have been admitted as being due to supersonic bangs and £600 has been paid in compensation.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF DEFENCE

Ships and Weapons (Spain)

Mr. Brockway: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what arrangements he has made with the Government of Spain for the building under licence of British-designed frigates, equipped with British weapon systems, the Chieftain tank and the TSR2 aircraft.

Mr. R. Edwards: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what agreements have been made with the Government of Spain for the production and building under licence of British-designed frigates and weapons.

Mr. Wall: asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the construction under British supervision of Leander class frigates for Spain.

Mr. Hastings: asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will make a statement on the recent negotiations with Spain for the export of naval vessels from this country.

The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Peter Thorneycroft): As I informed the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Stone-house) yesterday, we have for some time been discussing with the Spanish Government the building of warships of British design in Spain. Until recently it seemed that the negotiations would reach a successful conclusion, but I understand that the Spanish Government do not now intend to proceed with them. It is estimated that the agreement would in all have been worth some £11 million to the British economy, £2–3 million for design fees and similar payments and £8–9 million for equipment manufactured in this country for the Spanish Government.

Mr. Brockway: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is the practice of the Government to have discussions and negotiations of this character with Communist countries; and, if it is not, is it the deliberate policy of the Government that such negotiations shall take place with Fascist Governments?

Mr. Thorneycroft: The difference is quite clear. With regard to the Communist countries, we and our allies have fairly detailed arrangements that none of us will sell goods of certain categories to them, but in the case of Spain weapons of this category can freely be sold to her, and in fact will be sold by many of our allies.

Mr. Edwards: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the official policy of Spain is still to drive the British out of Gibraltar? This policy was confirmed only a month ago by Franco's deputy, General Grandes. It was also written into a motion that was discussed at the United Nations. Does not the Minister consider that it is treachery to the citizens of Gibraltar to arm Spain while this is still her policy?

Mr. Thorneycroft: Whatever the policy of the Spanish Government may or may not be, it will not be affected by them buying French or American equipment rather than British.

Mr. Hastings: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that there is a grave danger that, as a result of this, confidence may be lost in other British contracts, in the fastest growing market in Europe? Is not this a serious blow to our balance of payments position resulting from the crass political prejudice of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition?

Mr. Thorneycroft: This may be so, but I think that enough damage has been done to our trade already, without further comment.

Mr. Wigg: Would the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to tell the House whether the statement made by his spokesman that he could confirm that this order had been concluded was made under his authority? Would he also tell the House whether he has had an inquiry made into what the Foreign Secretary described as the premature disclosure of information? Has he considered the possibility that in fact the order had already been lost, and that some hon. Gentlemen, perhaps not so far away from him now, had the bright idea of being able to put up a smoke-screen, as has been done frequently in the past, to cover the Government's own ineptitude and at the same time to embarrass my right hon. Friend?

Mr. Lagden: On a point of order. Is it not highly reprehensible to refer to the Leader of the Opposition as a smokescreen?

Mr. Speaker: That is a poor point of order.

Mr. Thorneycroft: As the hon. Member has another Question on the Order Paper dealing with this matter we had better wait.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: While Gibraltar is British and must remain so, cannot only an ideologically fevered imagination conceive that these ships and aircraft would be used by the Spanish Government against us? Is not this antiquarian vendetta at the expense of British exports and British workers one more indication of the incompetence of the Socialists to govern modern Britain?

Mr. Healey: Can the Minister confirm that no agreement had been reached with the Spanish Government on such an order, and that the Spanish Government had simultaneously negotiated with a number of other foreign Governments for a similar order? Can he also say whether it is true that Her Majesty's Government had undertaken, if returned at the election—which heaven forbid—to support Spain's entry into N.A.T.O.?

Mr. Thorneycroft: The latter part of that supplementary question is a quite separate one. In respect of the sale of these frigates we were undoubtedly in intense competition—as we are in all trade matters all over the world—with many competitors. Unfortunately, the intervention of the Leader of the Opposition undoubtedly frustrated this sale.

PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURE (COMMITTEE)

The following Question stood upon the Order Paper:

Mr. SHINWELL: To ask the Lord Privy Seal what proposals Her Majesty's Government have for the reform of parliamentary procedure, including voting in divisions, the reference to standing committees of legislation, including finance, and the relations between the Executive and hon. Members.

The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I will now answer Question No. 45.
In each of the last three Sessions the House has set up a Select Committee on Procedure to deal with the various suggestions for improvement as they are made. I believe that this is the right way to deal with specific topical suggestions, and that this practice should continue.
On the other hand, it is nearly six years since the House last called for a wider review. The Government therefore believe that in the new Parliament a Committee, with wide terms of reference, similar to the one set up in 1958, should be empowered to examine the more fundamental questions, such as those referred to by the right hon. Gentleman, together with other suggestions for change that have recently been canvassed.

Mr. Shinwell: I am obliged to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for displaying an interest in this very important matter, but does he realise that in these days, when there is so much talk about modernisation in industry, it is time that we began to modernise this assembly? [Interruption.] That might include parting with some hon. Members opposite. They will lose their seats at the General Election, anyhow.
Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman realise that we are much too slow in coming to a definite and rational conclusion about the modernisation of Parliamentary procedure, especially in respect of the method of voting, the dilatory method of taking Divisions, and the time-wasting that is experienced by hon. Members because they have not sufficient work to do owing to our cumbrous procedure? Does he realise these facts, because they are inescapable—and, if so, will he make it quite clear beyond a peradventure—

Sir W. Bromley-Davenport: This is a Second Reading speech.

Mr. Shinwell: It is about time there was a speech in Parliament on this matter.

Sir H. Linstead: It is Question Time now.

Mr. Shinwell: Anyhow, this will do for the time being.
Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman give me an assurance that in


Government circles research is already going on into this very important subject?

Mr. Lloyd: It is commonly felt that there are ways in which our procedure can be improved. The Select Committee on Procedure, which is at present sitting, has been considering one or two small matters relating to the improvement of our procedure. These are matters for the House as a whole. Evidence should be given before a Select Committee, and I hope that it will take place rapidly. I agree that if changes can be made for the better they should be made.

Mr. Bellenger: The House will no doubt welcome the right hon. and learned Gentleman's statement, but much depends on the terms of reference which will be given to that Committee. Will the Minister make them as wide as possible, because it is not a limited matter (hat we want to discuss but a wholesale reform which may be necessary?

Mr. Lloyd: Certainly, I agree that the terms of reference should be as wide as possible.

Mr. J. B. Hynd: The Lord Privy Seal says that he hopes and expects that something will be done after the election. Will he consider trying to persuade his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and his colleagues to expedite the General Election, because this is one of many things which has not been done over the past year, but which the country, like the Minister himself, would like to see done?

Mr. Speaker: That point does not arise out of the Question.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Mr. Wigg: On a point of order. It will be within your recollection, Mr. Speaker, that the right hon. Member the Secretary of State for Defence asked me just now to wait so that he could answer Questions Nos. 58 and 59. Can we take it that we will get those Answers?

Mr. Speaker: I heard the reference, but what I heard about it would make me think, with respect, that the hon. Gentleman was optimistic in thinking

that it was indicative of an intended reply.

Mr. Wigg: I am obliged, Mr. Speaker. I was not in the least optimistic. Knowing the right hon. Gentleman, I knew that it was only a device to dodge answering two awkward Questions.

Mr. Speaker: I do not know what the hon. Member thinks he is doing.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd): As the Local Government Burton upon Trent Order has not yet been finally reported on by the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments, consideration of it will be postponed.
The business for Thursday and Friday has therefore been rearranged as follows:
THURSDAY, 9TH JULY—Second Reading of the Spray Irrigation (Scotland) Bill [Lords], and Committee stage of the Money Resolution.

Motions on the Roads and Bridges (Scotland) Order, the Cinematograph Films (Distribution of Levy) (Amendment) Regulations, and on the Furniture Industry Development Council (Amendment No. 2) Order.

At seven o'clock, opposed Private Business.

FRIDAY, 10TH JULY—Second Reading of the Criminal Procedure (Insanity) Bill [Lords].

Remaining stages of the Zambia Independence Bill.

Consideration of Lords Amendments to the Housing Bill.

Motion on the Goods Vehicles (Keeping of Records) Order.

Mr. Jennings: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that his decision to postpone the consideration of the Burton upon Trent Order will give considerable satisfaction to the county borough? Is he further aware that I am gratified that he accepted my suggestion, last Thursday, that he should inquire further into the advisability and validity of this Order? Can he give me a further assurance that I need not now worry myself with any further objections to the Order within the lifetime of the present Parliament?

Mr. Lloyd: I am gratified that my hon. Friend is gratified, but he should not be too optimistic. The reason why this Order will not be taken this week is that the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments has not yet reported upon it.

Mr. M. Stewart: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that this gratification is shared by my hon. Friends and myself? Does he agree that, in general, in respect of this and other matters much time will be saved if the Government will take the Opposition's advice when it is given instead of waiting a week in each case?

Mr. Lloyd: I hope that the Opposition will always agree that it would be wrong to debate an Order before the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments has reported on it.

SHIPPING (U.S. FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION)

The Minister of Transport (Mr. Ernest Marples): Mr. Speaker, with your permission and that of the House, I wish to make a statement.
As the House will be aware, Her Majesty's Government have become increasingly concerned about the attempts made by the U.S. Federal Maritime Commission to apply to shipping of any flag the same sort of regulations as it applies under its domestic law to United States shipping. Our concern is, of course, shared by a number of other maritime countries.
The most recent example of this unilateral regulation is the attempt by the Commission to impose conditions on contracts made in the United Kingdom As I told the House on 1st July, in reply to a Question by the right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. G. R. Strauss), these matters are now the subject of further discussion with the Americans at Government level. The Federal Maritime Commission has now agreed to an extension until 1st September of the date on which it is requiring our shipowners to comply with their orders on the contract case. This, of course, is helpful. For our part, we earnestly hope that the outcome of our discussions with the United States Government will be satisfactory.
However, it is the duty of Her Majesty's Government to safeguard the rights of British subjects, including our traders and shipowners, and to ensure that the proper jurisdiction of the United Kingdom is not weakened or diminished. If, in this situation we did nothing to maintain our authority, it might be thought to go by default. Therefore, in view of the present uncertainties, and to make our position quite clear, we have decided to present a Bill to the House. It will be published today.
Briefly, the purpose of the Bill is to protect the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom from encroachments arising from the imposition by any foreign country on persons carrying on business in the United Kingdom of requirements relating to the carriage of goods or passengers by sea or the production or furnishing of documents or information. One Clause of the Bill will provide—

Mr. Shinwell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will be aware, with great respect, that what the right hon. Gentleman is doing is detailing to the House the provisions of the Bill. It is a very short Bill as we know, and he has taken advantage of the fact of making a statement to the House actually to make the kind of speech that he would make on Second Reading.

Mr. Speaker: I do not think that there is anything out of order. When we get to the Second Reading debate everyone can talk about it if they want to.

Mr. Marples: I felt that this—

Mr. Ross: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Are not there definite rules in relation to anticipation of debate and such matters?

Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman has said that one Clause of the Bill will provide something. I do not know how much detail he is going into. I do not think that that can seriously be regarded as an anticipation of the Second Reading speech.

Mr. Marples: The circumstances are unusual and I hope that the House will permit me to continue.

One Clause of the Bill will provide that where the Minister of Transport considers that measures taken by any foreign country in the field of contracts


for the carriage of goods or passengers by sea constitute an infringement of United Kingdom jurisdiction he will make an order applying that Clause to these measures. The Bill will then provide that shipowners carrying on business in this country will be required to notify him of any requirements imposed on them by those measures, and the Minister will also be empowered to give directions prohibiting persons from complying with such requirements.

The Bill also provides powers for the Minister of Transport and other Ministers to prohibit any person in the United Kingdom from complying with demands which encroach on our jurisdiction by the court or authority of any foreign country for the production of commercial documents or information located outside that country.

We hope that Parliament will find it possible to approve the Measure before the Summer Recess. I must stress that the powers given in the Bill are permissive and I hope that a settlement of our difficulties over American shipping regulations can be reached by friendly discussion and negotiation.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: Presumably, we shall discuss the details of the Bill when it is presented, and I assume that we shall have ample opportunities for such discussion. Meanwhile, it seems clear that such a Bill is desirable and urgent. The only surprise is that the Minister has waited until so late in the Session before introducing it. There may be many points which my hon. Friends may wish to raise about detail when they see the Bill, but, meanwhile, I can give the right hon. Gentleman an assurance that we shall do everything we can to facilitate its passage through the House.

Mr. Marples: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. He is quite right. I think that the Bill is both desirable and urgent. The only reason I made a statement today was that I thought that the House should be given some idea of what the Government proposed to do. We are proposing to act speedily and I thought that the House should be informed as soon as possible.

Mr. Atkins: Is my right hon. Friend aware that we on this side of the House congratulate him on his efforts to safeguard British shipowners and shipping?

Can he tell us what proportion of world shipping is owned by the countries which he has succeeded in getting together to oppose unreasonable American demands?

Mr. Marples: The 10 European countries and Japan between them own a great deal more than half the world's shipping. We are opposed to what the Commission is trying to impose on this country. If we can maintain solidarity, and get the Bill passed, we shall be in a much stronger position to resist that pressure.

Mr. Bellenger: Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, you made a statement about the procedure to be adopted regarding Ministerial statements. You will note that there is no Question before the House now and, therefore, any further discussion will be very limited. In view of the wide range which the Minister has taken today, presumably the Chair would limit the questions of hon. Members who might want to discuss this matter, or question the Minister upon what he has said.
As Ministers have to get your permission before making a statement like this, would it be possible for you to see the statement before you approved it?

Mr. Speaker: Ministers do not have to get permission from me. They have to give me notice of their intention to make a statement, they do not have to get my permission.

Mr. Webster: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the initiative which he has taken. Can he say whether any of the other countries involved are putting through similar legislation?

Mr. Marples: I am not responsible for them and I cannot anwer that question. I know that a number of European countries have similar legislation.

BILLS PRESENTED

BRITISH NORTH AMERICA

Bill to amend the British North America Act 1867, presented by Mr. Sandys; supported by Mr. Selwyn Lloyd, the Attorney-General, and Mr. John Tilney; read the First time; to be read a Second time Tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 182.]

SHIPPING CONTRACTS AND COMMERCIAL DOCUMENTS

Bill to secure Her Majesty's jurisdiction against encroachment by certain foreign requirements in respect of the carriage of goods or passengers by sea and in respect of the production of documents and furnishing of information, presented by Mr. Ernest Marples; supported by the Prime Minister, Mr. Butler, Mr. Heath, the Attorney-General, and Vice-Admiral John Hughes Hallett; read the First time; to be read a Second time Tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 183.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (SUPPLY)

Ordered, That this day Business other than the Business of Supply may be taken before Ten o'clock.—[Mr. Martin Redmayne.]

TRADE UNION COMMISSION

3.48 p.m.

Mr. Ronald Bell: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to establish a permanent commission to which the Minister of Labour may refer for report and recommendation matters relating to the structure and operation of trade unions.
Trade unions occupy a powerful position in our national life. They affect many people directly and all people indirectly. It would not be surprising if there already existed such provision for their accountability as I am proposing this afternoon, or some machinery of a more positive character. I shall not be surprised if the proposal I make is not entirely unopposed. It is interesting to ask why, when the lack of such machinery has been recognised for a long time, any proposal to fill the gap should not command undivided support.
I think that the answer to that question lies in the history of the protracted and often bitter struggles by which the trade unions built up their position. They built it up in constant collision with established authority and with the law. Although that battle has long passed it is still difficult for some people to realise that the trade unions are now part of the Establishment and that they must assume a stable place in the balance of the Constitution.
By a process very familiar in our history the successful rebel assumes with a share of power a share of responsibility and, once the militant phase is over, also a share of accountability. The balance of our Constitution, I believe, lies in this, that in public matters everyone is accountable to someone else. Many are accountable to Ministers of the Crown. The Ministers are accountable to this House. This House, as we all have good cause to know at the moment, is accountable to the people.
Employers are accountable to the Monopolies Commission—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—and I got the impression last Monday that the party opposite thought that they should be more accountable. They are also accountable to the Restrictive Practices Court, the scope of which we have been busy enlarging through the Resale Prices Bill.
By virtue of their size, their cohesion, their accumulated funds and immunity from legal action over a wide sphere trade unions now exercise more real power than any association of employers does or can ever hope to do. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Trade unions are exempt from the competence of both the Monopolies Commission and the Restrictive Practices Court. They are not answerable to Parliament. They are, in fact, not answerable to anybody outside themselves.
It might be said "Why should they be?", since they are private societies? They are registered under the trade union Acts and come under the scrutiny of the Registrar, who has certain formal powers of scrutiny. I might be asked what other private society is required to answer further for what it does. The answer is, first, that the trade unions enjoy, under Act of Parliament, the special legal immunities to which I have referred and, secondly, that they have employed their power and immunities to establish, possibly rightly, such a postition that in many occupations unless one is a member of a particular trade union one cannot exercise one's skill.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: What about the Law Society?

Mr. Bell: I will be happy to consider any extensions of the principle I am putting forward. I am glad of the support for the principle itself.
Because of their strength and immunity, the trade unions can, when they choose, bring whole industries to a standstill and exert the most immediate and drastic effect on the daily lives and needs of the whole community.
I consider that these are adequate reasons why they should not be treated like any ordinary society. To say that is not to say that the infliction of personal injustice or public inconvenience is a part of the normal daily activities of the trade unions. Of course it is not, but to say that the power to inflict such detriment, personal and public, exists and that examples of both are not unknown is, I hope, to state in moderate terms what all hon. Members know to be the facts; and it is a sufficient answer to the argument that trade unions should be allowed to go about their industrial business without any form of scrutiny, even one so modest as I suggest.
My proposal is that there should be a commission—not a Royal Commission which would brood over the whole issue for two or three years—and then produce a general report on trade unions. That might be a perfectly good thing, but what I am proposing is a permanent commission, analagous to the Monopolies Commission, which was itself created by Statute to consider the working of employers' combinations. [HON. MEMBERS: "What about the lawyers?"] I hope that hon. Members opposite who are intervening will permit me to complete my remarks, because I do not want to take longer than 10 minutes.
The Monopolies Commission can consider only what the President of the Board of Trade refers to it. I propose that the trade union commission should consider only matters referred to it by the Minister of Labour and that, like the Monopolies Commission, it should have power to report and make recommendations which, if Parliament so resolves by affirmative Resolution of both Houses—as in the case of the Monopolies Commission—would have the force of law.
The matters which could be referred to it might be those relating to the operation and structure of trade unions. I do not imagine that a particular industrial dispute—that is, between employers and employees—could be successfully referred to it, but I think that matters like the union structure in a particular industry most usefully could be. We might not have spent so many fruitless years trying to grapple with demarcation disputes in the shipbuilding industry, and still be so far from a final solution, had we had the sort of body which I now advocate. Hon. Members might be interested to know that the Shipbuilding Advisory Committee has stated that the situation in the industry
…stems from the history and traditions of the industry, which die hard and have their effects even after the original cause has disappeared".
The Committee added, and this is particularly important:
… it is not common sense to let things go on as they are".
The trouble is that things have gone on as they are for a very long time.
There might be referred to the body I advocate the unsolved and highly embarrassing problem for the unions of the


individual member who, for some reason or other—perhaps conscience or eccentricity—has been expelled from his union, and is not just fined a small sum of money, but is debarred from using the skill that he possesses. There might be referred to it some of the restrictive practices of labour—

Mr. Archie Manuel: What about the employers?

Mr. Bell: —which we all know exist just as much as we know that there are restrictive practices on the employers' side. However, about those on the labour side nothing at all can be done at present.
There are, for example, the restrictive practices in London newspaper offices, which were referred to in scathing terms in paragraphs 77 to 114 of the Report of the Royal Commission on the Press, in which it was said by that Commission that there was one-third overstaffing in London newspaper offices, that some of the demarcation difficulties were "grotesque", that the restrictive practices which existed were "wholly without justification", that productivity had declined significantly since before the war and was continuing to decline, and that some of the restrictive practices were 40 years old. The Commission also said:
Inefficiency is not turned into efficiency because the parties have agreed to it … The truth is that the very organisation of industrial relations in this industry contributes to inefficiency.
I have seen it stated—[Interruption.]— and despite the interruptions of hon. Gentlemen opposite I will try to restrict myself to 10 minutes—in a newspaper that the Government have put on a "strong two-line Whip" in my support this afternoon. I fear that that is an agreeable exaggeration. I hope, however, to have the support of my hon. Friends in the Lobby today, because not only is this a cause which I have been putting forward for over seven years by every means short of a Bill, but I have seen support for it grow from small beginnings until, I think, I shall today have the support not only of my hon. Friends but of a number of hon. Members opposite.
The reason for my suggestion about having this support is obvious. For long

years the cry has been, "Leave it to both sides of industry"—itself an anachronistic expression. The rate of progress by that method has been that of a diffident snail, and after many years very little can be recorded. Many hon. Members on both sides of the House believe that the time has come when Parliament should take the first initiative. It may be that a Royal Commission would be the right answer. It is not for me to say.
The danger of a Royal Commission is that when it reports there might be initiated a broad doctrinal solution of this problem, while what I ask leave to introduce is a much more British and pragmatic method of approaching this problem—a method which, by its very character, would enable there to be gradually built up, by a series of public and impartial reports, a kind of case law on the subject. Later, the next step may take shape in our minds and, perhaps, even be as un-controversial as the introduction of the Restrictive Practices Court was after the Monopolies Commission had been in operation for some years.
I know that there are strong prejudicial feelings among hon. Members opposite about this. I sympathise with them, but is the situation not this? We have for 16 years been imposing one inquiry and control after another upon the practices of employers. We have not said, in relation to management, "Leave it to both sides of industry". We have said that Parliament must intervene. Is it suggested that on the labour side among the trade unions all is perfect? If not, must we leave it to both sides of industry, or have Parliament and people also some interest? Why is it reasonable that the trade unions and the labour side should claim to be the judge and jury in their own cause when that is plainly wrong for the employers?
I hope that the Opposition, which, of course, have a particular connection with the unions, will on this occasion abandon their glowering hostility to any proposal of this sort, rise above barren prejudice, seize the opportunity to put country before party, and give to this proposal the support which its merits deserve.

Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 13 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees

at commencement of Public Business).

The House divided: Ayes 149, Noes 145.

Division No. 131.]
AYES
[4.3 p.m.


Agnew, Sir Peter
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Prior, J. M. L.


Allason, James
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Anderson, D. C.
Hastings, Stephen
Pym, Francis


Arbuthnot, Sir John
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Atkins, Humphrey
Henderson, Sir John (Cathcart)
Redmayne, Rt. Hon, Martin


Barlow, Sir John
Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Renton, Rt. Hon. David


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Hirst, Geoffrey
Ridley, Hon. Nicholas


Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Hocking, Philip N.
Robertson, Sir D.(C'thn's & S'th'ld)


Berkeley, Humphry
Hollingworth, John
Roots, William


Biffen, John
Hopkins, Alan
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Biggs-Davison, John
Hughes-Young, Michael
Russell, Sir Ronald


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Seymour, Leslie


Bishop, Sir Patrick
Iremonger, T. L.
Shaw, M.


Black, Sir Cyril
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Bossom, Hon. Clive
Johnson, Erio (Blackley)
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd & Chiswick)


Braine, Bernard
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Smyth, Rt. Hon. Brig. Sir John


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
Kerby, Capt. Henry
Stainton, Keith


Buck, Antony
Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Stanley, Hon. Richard


Burden, F. A.
Kershaw, Anthony
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)
Lagden, Godfrey
Storey, Sir Samuel


Cleaver, Leonard
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Studholme, Sir Henry


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Leavey, J. A.
Talbot, John E.


Costain, A. P.
Lilley, F. J. P.
Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)


Coulson, Michael
Linstead, Sir Hugh
Taylor, Frank (M'ch'st'r, Moss Side)


Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Litchfield, Capt. John
Taylor, Sir William (Bradford, N.)


Critchley, Julian
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Cunningham, Sir Knox
Longden, Gilbert
Thomas, Sir Leslie (Canterbury)


Curran, Charles
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn
Thompson, Sir Kenneth (Walton)


Dalkeith, Earl of
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Dance, James
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Maclean, SirFitzroy (Bute&N. Ayrs)
Turner, Colin


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.
MacLeod, Sir John (Ross&Cromarty)
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Duthie, Sir William (Banff)
McMaster, Stanley R.
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Elliott, R. W. (Newc'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Maginnis, John E.
Vickers, Miss Joan


Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Maitland, Sir John
Walder, David


Errington, Sir Eric
Markham, Major Sir Frank
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek


Fell, Anthony
Marples, Rt. Hon. Ernest
Wall, Patrick


Finlay, Graeme
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)
Ward, Dame Irene


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Maude, Angus (Stratford-on-Avon)
Webster, David


Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Freeth, Denzil
Montgomery, Fergus
Williams, Sir Rolf Dudley (Exeter)


Gammans, Lady
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Willis, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Giles, Rear-Admiral Morgan
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Wise, A. R.


Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)
Nugent, Rt. Hon. Sir Richard
Woodnutt, Mark


Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)
Oakshott, Sir Hendrie
Woollam, John


Goodhew, Victor
Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Gower, Raymond
Peel, John



Grosvenor, Lord Robert
Percival, Ian
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth
Mr. Ronald Bell and


Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Pounder, Rafton
Sir Rupert Spier.




NOES


Ainsley, William
Cliffe, Michael
Ginsburg, David


Albu, Austen
Craddock George (Bradford, S.)
Gourlay, Harry


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Cronin, John
Greenwood, Anthony


Alldritt, W. H.
Dalyell, Tam
Grey, Charles


Awbery, Stan (Bristol, Central)
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)


Bacon, Miss Alice
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)


Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)
Deer, George
Hamilton, William (West Fife)


Beaney, Alan
Dempsey, James
Hannan, William


Bence, Cyril
Diamond, John
Harper, Joseph


Benson, Sir George
Doig, Peter
Hayman, F. H.


Boardman, H.
Driberg, Tom
Healey, Denis


Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)
Dufly, A. E. P. (Colne Valley)
Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Rwly Regis)


Boyden, James
Ede, Rt. Hon. C.
Herbison, Miss Margaret


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Holt, Arthur


Bradley, Tom
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Houghton, Douglas


Brockway, A. Fenner
Fernyhough, E.
Hoy, James H.


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Hunter, A. E.


Carmichael, Nell
Galpern, Sir Myer
Hynd, H. (Accrington)


Castle, Mrs. Barbara
Ceorge, LadyMeganLloyd (Crmrthn)
Hynd, John (Attercliffe)




Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Monslow, Walter
Spriggs, Leslie


Janner, Sir Barnett
Morris, Charles (Openshaw)
Steele, Thomas


Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)
Mulley, Frederick
Stonehouse, John


Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Stones, William


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Oliver, G. H.
Stross, SirBarnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)


Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
O'Malley, B. K.
Swingler, Stephen


Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Oswald, Thomas
Symonds, J. B.


Kelley, Richard
Paget, R. T.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Kenyon, Clifford
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)
Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)


Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Parker, John
Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)


King, Dr. Horace
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Thornton, Ernest


Lawton, George
Pentland, Norman
Thorpe, Jeremy


Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Randall, Harry
Tomney, Frank


Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)
Rankin, John
Wade, Donald


Lipton, Marcus
Reynolds, G. W.
Wainwright, Edwin


Loughlin, Charles
Rhodes, H.
Watkins, Tudor


Lubbock, Eric
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Weitzman, David


McCann, J.
Robertson, John (Paisley)
White, Mrs. Eirene


MacColl, James
Rodgers, W. T. (Stockton)
Wilkins, W. A.


Mclnnes, James
Rogers, G. H. R. (Kensington, N.)
Willey, Frederick


McKay, John (Wallsend)
Ross, William
Williams, LI. (Abertillery)


Mackenzie, Gregor
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.
Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)


Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Winterbottom, R. E.


Manuel, Archie
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Mapp, Charles
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)
Woof, Robert


Marsh, Richard
Small, William
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Mellish, R. J.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)



Millan, Bruce
Snow, Julian
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Milne, Edward
Sorensen, R. W.
Mr. Popplewell and




Mr. Frank McLeavy.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Ronald Bell, Mr. F. M. Bennett, Mr. W. Clark, Mr. Goodhew, Mr. John Hall, Mr. Clark Hutchison, Mr. Kershaw, Mr. Kitson, Mr. Graham Page, Sir R. Russell, Mr. Speir, and Mr. Wall.

TRADE UNION COMMISSION

Bill to establish a permanent commission to which the Minister of Labour may refer for report and recommendation matters relating to the structure and operation of trade unions, presented accordingly and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 17th July, and to be printed. [Bill 184.]

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

[22ND ALLOTTED DAY]

Considered in Committee.

[Sir WILLIAM ANSTRUTHER-GRAY in the Chair]

Orders of the Day — CIVIL ESTIMATES AND SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1964–65

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a further sum, not exceeding £65, be granted to Her Majesty, towards defraying the charges for the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1965, for the following services connected with Transport, namely:—

CIVIL ESTIMATES AND SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1964–65



£


Class IV, Vote 11, Ministry of Transport
10


Class IV, Vote 12, Roads, &amp;c., England and Wales
10


Class IV, Vote 13, Roads, &amp;c., Scotland
10


Class IV, Vote 14, Transport (Shipping and Special Services)
10


Class IV, Vote 14, Transport (Shipping and Special Services) (Supplementary Estimate)
5


Class IV, Vote 15, Transport (Railways and Waterways Boards)
10


Class V, Vote 2, Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland
10


Total
£65

TRANSPORT

4.13 p.m.

Mr. Ray Gunter: I am sure that the choice of transport by the Opposition as a subject for today's debate will occasion no surprise, because, in view of the statements and the reports which are being issued from various quarters of the transport industry, there appears to be a growing doubt among those in the most responsible posts in transport about the dogmatic assertions which have been made by the Minister of Transport over the past two years.
There appears to be, at the very top level of transport administration, an appreciation that this important industry cannot be dealt with section

by section, and that it cannot be dealt with purely on a profit-making basis. It appears that the word used in all the statements and reports, particularly of the British Railways Board, is "rationalisation". We had the word "co-ordination", but that has been unfrocked, if that is the right term, and the word "rationalisation" has been sanctified.
It has been submitted time and again from this side of the Committee that while the objective in transport is and always must remain the creation of the most efficient and modern industry, it is not possible to achieve that state if one sector of the industry can have the non-economic units within it stripped off one by one. It is quite impossible for a rationalised transport system to emerge if it is dealt with in this way. I must remind the Minister of this, because of his assertion from time to time that he is clear about the purpose which he has set the Railways Board.
In view of the evidence which over the last three weeks has been submitted by the Board to the Geddes Committee on Licensing, there is a strange contradiction with the attitude of a few years ago. On 12th June, 1961, in one of the first Press conferences which Dr. Beeching ever gave, he stated that it was the intention and the purpose of the undertaking to make railways pay. Three years later, in June, 1964, if I understand the evidence submitted to the Geddes Committee, it is admitted that with the present set-up and the existing inequity between road and rail, and the utter chaos of the licensing system, there is no hope of achieving what was so proudly asserted three years ago.
However it may be agreed by all that the railways have a fundamental part to play in any future rationalised industry—and we all agree that this is so within the foreseeable future—we know from the evidence submitted that the railways cannot be made to pay under the existing circumstances and cannot play the rôle which they ought to play. It has been said recently by the Railways Board—and I quote recent expressions of opinion by transport men—that there is a proper and important rôle for railways to play within a rationalised transport system. Such a system, Dr. Beeching has submitted, must encourage each form of transport to concentrate on those services


which it can perform best. In its submission the Railways Board adds that such a rationalised system cannot be achieved unless there is co-operation between road and rail and the development of complementary services.
This is an important part of the evidence, and I beg the Minister to give it his closest attention. After three years the Railways Board has arrived at the conclusion that a rationalised transport system will be unable to function properly unless due and proper regard is paid to the true costs of providing the services and the facilities required. The Board also says that the right pattern of the industry for the last 40 years of this century is unlikely to emerge unless the financial burden which each form of transport is required to bear includes a proper share of the true cost of providing and maintaining the physical facilities and services which are required. This has long been the basic argument of this side of the Committee—that a rationalised and efficient transport service cannot emerge until we have the data and the facts and the costings upon which to base the processes which we wish to undertake.
I am sure that the Minister will recognise the glint of wry humour among some of us on this side, because when we argued that the rationalised industry which we wanted was not possible until the surveys had been done and the Geddes Committee had reported, we were airily dismissed and were informed by the Railways Board and the Minister that sufficient information was in their possession to allow them to proceed with the process of mutilating the railway system.
Now, in June, 1964, the Railways Board, the chosen instrument of the Minister, has confirmed all that the Labour Party has been saying for two years. The tablets have at last been brought down from Mount Sinai, and I hope that the Minister will read them carefully. The Board has asserted—this is an interesting fact—that trunk road system costs are at least twice as great as trunk rail system costs and that the road freight transport operator probably pays no more than one-third to one-half of his road costs, assuming that the whole of the licensing and fuel duties were to be regarded as attributable to the cost of providing, maintaining, signalling and

policing the highway and no part of them allocated for general revenue purposes.
This is a crazy situation. However much hon. Members opposite may dispute the statistics and the facts which have been presented to the Geddes Committee by the Railways Board—I am sure that there will be disputations about their accuracy—it must not be forgotten that this evidence has not come from rail-waymen. This is the evidence of the men whom the Minister imported from I.C.I. and Shell. Therefore, I can assume that the Minister believes them to be basically sound. These are the chosen people of the Minister who are submitting the facts of life on transport to the Geddes Committee. The assumption in their evidence is that in present circumstances road operation is being very heavily subsidised from public funds.
One of the ironies of the situation is that probably the biggest subsidisers of road freight vehicles are the private motorists. The private motorist, groaning in travail at being held up hour after hour, at waiting in the sun in the long lanes and queues of traffic, can console himself that he is helping to pay for his own misery. He can be comforted by the fact that, by providing this hidden subsidy to road haulage today, he enables many of these vehicles to remain on the road.
Let us be clear. This is in no way to suggest that freight-carrying by road is so burdensome an exercise for others that it must be eliminated. I do not know any transport man who does not recognise that there is a great and growing place for road haulage. One of the great needs of the country is for our road programme to match the development of the number of vehicles which have been licensed. I hope that we shall look into the future and ensure that those who own private cars—everybody has a right to a private car, if he wants it—are properly and adequately dealt with on the roads.
What Dr. Beeching wants to do is to concentrate on what he believes the railways can do best—bulk commodity carryings, not over short distances, but essentially on long hauls. This is what he has said within the last month or so. The great place and purpose of railways in the future of the transport industry is to concentrate on the long haul and thus


relieve the roads of as many as possible of the great vehicles which cause so much congestion. Dr. Beeching asserted in evidence to the Geddes Committee that the carrying of bulk commodities by long-distance haulage provides the railways with a bright future.
Therefore, we arrive at the conclusion—I hope that the Minister will agree with me—that, in the main, long-distance road freight haulage is uneconomic, in the light of the disparity between trunk road system costs and rail trunk costs. It would not be worth carrying on if, in many cases, it did not receive what I have referred to as the hidden subsidy.
Rationalisation—the blessed word which is now used in every speech and every statement of the Railways Board, and to which I presume the Minister subscribes—demands, in Dr. Beeching's own words, a measure of co-operation between road and rail. At this point we must ask ourselves: what are the prospects of co-operation between the road interests and the rail interests so that the desired rationalised industry can emerge? I suggest that they are a bit grim. There is the acknowledged determination recently expressed by Dr. Beeching of the railways to withdraw even further from local movement and distribution, in which their part is already exceedingly small and for which they are unsuited.
I hope that no railwayman will moan about this; these are the facts of life. Short-distance freight—not bulk commodities—can obviously be best carried on short routes by road. However, in the field where modern railways can play their greatest part, and where they must play that important part—the bulk commodities and the long-distance hauls—I see little hope—I know that the Minister must have read certain speeches lately—of an equal acceptance by the road interests.
Much play has been made of the concept of the liner train. That is the fast moving train, speeding with the precision of a modern passenger timetable, with a carrying capacity of perhaps over 500 tons, between our great industrial areas and our docks. This is the concept. This is what could take so much of the heavy bulk traffic off the trunk road system.
I am very sorry indeed to see the immediate reaction of the road haulage interests. Instead of saying that this is a contribution to the real rationalisation of the industry, that it is a contribution to removing unnecessary vehicles from the roads, what do they say? On 29th October, 1963, the Chairman of the Road Haulage Association, speaking in Sheffield about the possibility of the development of liner trains with speeds of up to 150 m.p.h. and a capacity of 500 tons, said that it would be very foolish to suppose that the road hauliers would sit on their hands and let the traffic escape from them. He said that the road haulier would immediately review his own lack of resources. The result, he asserted, would be the evolution of a new type of vehicle capable, with ease, of a cruising speed of 70 m.p.h. Tractors of this character, he said, might be found to be ideal for swift transit on our great motorways.
Any sensible transport man who will relieve himself of doctrine must in these circumstances ask this question. If we are to pour £100 million, to start with, into the creation of fast-moving liner trains, the modernisation of track and the dieselisation of engines, is it really necessary that at the same time road haulage interests should require vast capital expenditure to be laid out for great new motorways to carry freight traffic which I thought we had assumed was best handled, in the national interest, by the railways?

Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: Would the hon. Gentleman, in fairness, also agree that the Chairman of the Road Haulage Association, Mr. D. O. Good, has on many occasions welcomed the liner trains, and has gone a long way in co-operating with the railways in seeing how best they can be used?

Mr. Gunter: I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Gentleman, but it is Mr. D. O. Good who used the words that I have been quoting.

Mr. David Webster: Is it not also a fact that the Road Haulage Association instituted talks with Dr. Beeching on the development of the liner train, and are not those talks at present in jeopardy because of


the intransigence of the National Union of Railwaymen in not allowing free access to the liner train depots?

Mr. Gunter: Yes, I shall come to that point in due course, but I would say that flowery speeches and nice dinners are not all that is needed for co-operation. Is this desirable co-operation to which the hon. Gentlemen have just referred, and desired by Dr. Beeching, really taking place? Is there any real intention of private road interests giving up their private interests? For reasons I shall give later, and for which I do not blame them. I doubt it.
I only say that Dr. Beeching has clearly and rightly presented a case that utterly condemns Government policy. What does he say? Six months ago he said that the trouble is that there is a gross surplus of transport capacity for some purposes, and that some forms of transport are strangling themselves and each other. The Chairman of the Railways Board is not a railwayman, but that is what he said, and I suggest that he is at last on the right lines.
So let there be rationalisation. This is the desired end, and to achieve it there must be co-operation. I shall come in due course to the question of how we achieve that co-operation, but in view of what I have already said, voluntary cooperation appears to be impossible. It is clear that, the vested interests being so great, and human nature being what it is, the problem will have to be solved by the State. I hope that the Geddes Committee will have the courage to make really adventurous recommendations—that the job will have to be done by the State itself.
What is the prize? Let us forget our politics and our doctrine for the moment—what is the prize that can be achieved by a rationalised transport system in which each form of transport is doing what it is properly equipped to do? I believe that about £4,000 million a year is spent on internal transport—about 15 per cent. of our gross national product. Approximately half of that amount goes on freight transport.
If we can at last escape from the doctrine of the Minister and let transport men get down to the job, I believe—and I think that Dr. Beeching would agree

with me—that by squeezing out surplus and uneconomic transport, and by really making the railways and the roads compete or meet on terms of equity, we could carry more freight more efficiently and more economically in an expanding economy at a cost of less than £2,000 million per annum. I therefore hope that the Minister will give us his views, and let us see whether he is walking in step or out of step with the Railways Board in its thoughts about the future development of rail transport.
On the passenger-carrying side, it seems from recent events that there has been a decline in the Minister's zest for branch closures. Twelve months ago, his energy and powers of prophecy were very great. He spoke with vigour of the reshaping of the railway system that was to be carried out—but with what result? It is only six months ago since Dr. Beeching carefully pointed out that the fall in the railway deficit in 1963 could in no way be attributed to line closures, since they had not been put into effect. This confirms what has long been obvious—that proper working methods of railway operation have far more to contribute than have wholesale closures.
The Financial Time is certainly no friend of my party, but on 17th June it stated that even in 1964 the closures proposed will have little effect. It said:
It was originally assumed that decisions would have been reached by the end of this year about most of the 337 services which the Board is anxious to withdraw as uneconomic.
It went on:
In fact, only a small fraction of these withdrawals have yet been approved by the Minister and several services have been reprieved.
It added:
The present report is remarkably restrained about the slowness with which progress is being made.
I must confess that I welcome the slowness at this stage, but the Minister ought to explain his early passion and his present coyness. The truth is, of course, that the shadow of the General Election obliterates his previous doctrine.
What did we on this side argue? We never argued that out-of-date passenger services and uneconomic working should be kept on—that is daft, irrational—if we had an adequate alternative service that was more efficient and more


economic. There would be no purpose in that. I repeat that that would be quite irrational. We said, "First, however, let us have the facts. Let us find out on what basis the costing is taking place." It had not been demonstrated that sufficient thought had been given to the future planning and development of passenger services. It is now borne out on two fronts that the policy of closures was ill thought out and based on insufficient data.
We have the fascinating story of the Central Wales lines and other lines. I hope that the Minister will unfold this mystery in the light of what The Time had to say on, I think, 30th June:
Many branch lines services scheduled for closure … may receive a new lease of life as a result of confidential discussions taking place between the Ministry of Transport and the British Railways Board.
The Board now apparently wants permission to operate sparsely-loaded services as light railways instead of closing them, and to operate the Shrewsbury-Llanelly line with fast diesel multiple units using unmanned halts and open or automatic level crossings.
That is what we said 18 months ago. We said, "Before you close these lines why do you not look at alternative methods?" Now as a result, I understand, of the genius of a railwayman, the Minister has been brought to give new consideration to the matter, and Dr. Beeching has retreated from the dramatic pose he assumed 18 months ago, when he said, "If my proposals, which are contained in the 'Reshaping of British Railways', are carried out with vigour, we shall be all right."
The vigour has resulted in second thoughts, and today it is very probable that the Central Wales lines, and others, will be saved. As to the remarkably confidential nature of the discussions referred to by The Times, I wish the Minister well in this; he can keep the discussions very confidential, because if he deals with every other proposed closure in the same way I shall give him my blessing.
I should like the Minister to reflect upon the sheer nonsense of the T.U.C.C.s. I am sure that he will not want to continue with this nonsense. He must have seen the observations of the Central

Transport Consultative Committee for Great Britain, which were submitted on 10th June, 1964. He knows what the Committee says. It says that it is almost impossible to get objectors to understand that the T.U.C.C.s are not empowered to judge and certainly not to recommend on the merits of any proposed closure. They are only investigating hardship which could arise if the closure took place. Many objectors, it says, still consider that the Railways Board is not interested in improving and modernising marginal lines, but only in shedding, as quickly as possible, lines which are unprofitable, without first trying to make them pay their way, regardless of the public need. A deep suspicion of the Board's facts and figures supporting closures is in the minds of the objectors.
It is not only the objectors. Some of us who looked at these statistics could not make them apply at all. I should like to quote the actual words of the Central Transport Consultative Committee, submitted on 10th June. This requires from the Minister a little explanation. I do not think that the Railways Board is a body of deceitful people. I am sure it is not and, therefore, we should like an explanation of the allegations made by the Committee. It says:
Once a notice has been published we hope the Board will only in exceptional circumstances vary any of the services affected before the consent to closure has been given, not only because it is difficult for the Committee to assess the hardship arising when the original service has already been amended, but because it could appear to objectors to be an attempt to reduce the demand for the service by making it less attractive.
Then, it says:
We have noticed other cases where the reduction of facilities such as cheap tickets, the withdrawal of services from timetables, and even the substitution for the standard corridor stock of trains without through corridor connection between the coaches, has been carried out on lines which are included in the list of those under consideration for closure. There may be operational reasons for doing this kind of thing, but the effect on the Board's public relations is bad. It could appear to the travelling public concerned with services where any of the charges mentioned are made that the Railways are deliberately attempting to run down the demand so that by the time the public hearing takes place they can claim that fewer passengers are likely to suffer hardship because people will have been deterred by the reductions from using the services.


That is not a proper way of approaching a fundamental problem. It is in breach of even the limited powers of these committees. If these committees are to be allowed only to judge hardship, let them do it properly. Do not let the circumstances of the months before a closure be such that the railways deliberately run it down so that people cease to use the line.
In this period when we are trying to deal with some of the most difficult and complex problems in transport, how can we do it if we adopt tactics of that kind? I say that the Minister ought to ensure that this practice, if it is as the Committee suggests, is stopped. I hope that the Minister will deal with some of the allegations that have been made. Surely it is a point of policy to attract by modern methods as much as possible of road, freight and passenger traffic to the alternative form of transport. I suggest that the T.U.C.C.s are so restricted as to be almost futile. They can make little contribution to any solution of the major problem.
I ask the Minister: why is he so silly and so prejudiced? Any suggestion that publicly-owned transport has a tremendously important rôle to play always seems to arouse the worst in him. He would not let the workshops of British Railways, upon which we are to spend millions of pounds in modernising, build the vehicles that are to run on the railway lines. How stupid can he get?
That is not the only part of the Minister's activities. In the Transport Holding Company's Report, published a few weeks ago, there appeared these pathetic words:
The Holding Company's subsidiaries are prohibited from engaging in the manufacture of anything except what is required for use in their own business, or for supply to the Railways, London Transport, Docks or Waterways Boards.… Furthermore, the Minister has by Directions restricted the productive capacity of each of the manufacturing companies to the level of that company as at 1st January, 1963.
The Report goes on:
The Holding Company is satisfied that the complete bus as produced by these two companies in combination is of high standard as regards quality and performance; and although the artificial imitation on output makes it difficult to produce buses quite as cheaply as would otherwise be possible, and although even the full capacity would still be low compared

with the output of the national producers of vehicles, there are advantages in keeping these relatively small works in being. The Holding Company would hope, however, to find some way of sharing these advantages in due course with others and of widening the commercial approach at the same time, thereby maximising the potential of this particular investment.
Why does the Minister adopt this attitude on purely doctrinal grounds simply because these happen to be publicly owned? I have come to the conclusion that we must accept—I say this in all seriousness—that rationalisation of the transport industry is essential. If the present surplus capacity is a running sore, as it is, upon our economic life, if it is wasteful and inefficient to operate, as we are now operating it, what are the methods of carrying the necessary surgery?
I can do no better than quote the words—the very wise words—of Dr. Beeching on 31st October, 1963. I say with the greatest respect that this, perhaps, is the total of his conversion to what we knew would take place. He said:
When we consider it, 'rationalisation' is one of those words which seems to have a wholly good connotation as applied to any human, group activity, because we regard rationality as one of the desirable human attributes. Usually, however, a situation which is seen to be irrational as a whole results from the rational exercise of free individual choice within the existing framework of circumstances. Where this is so, it is probable that rationalisation of the general situation can be achieved only by some new limitation of individual choice. In practice, therefore, a proposal to rationalise almost invariably leads to a conflict of interests, and this is certainly so in relation to any proposal to rationalise our transport system.
With no offence, I would say that road and rail must face the new limitations of individual choice. If this running sore—the deficit from which we now suffer—is to be removed, and if we are to have a transport system which is capable of dealing efficiently and economically with the great modern development we look forward to in industry, free individual choice is not possible under a rationalised system. The contraction of the outmoded and redundant on the railways has to be faced, it may be with some bitterness, but it is imperative to do so in the nation's interest.
Equally, the great road interests should face the primary need of withdrawal


in certain areas and in certain respects from long-distance freight-carrying. I understand the anguish which they suffer. I blame no one for this. I understand what it means when my own men are made redundant. They hate to see what is their own disappear. It is a hard experience when they are no longer necessary. They want to hold what they have. The long-distance road haulage interests will also suffer, and in the interests of the nation they, too, will have to be more forthcoming.
I repeat that the condition of the survival of the railways is their capacity in efficiency and economy to fulfil the rôle which transport experts believe they should. It can be achieved only as there is rationalisation, particularly in longdistance freight haulage. We can ask how and when. I shall not be as arrogant as some people who have assumed that they know all the answers about modern transport before they have assembled the facts. The lesson which we have learned over the past 12 months is that it would be far better for the reshaping of British Railways if the Buchanan Report, and the Geddes Report, which will be available now by the end of the year, had been brooded upon and decisions arrived at as a result of the end picture that they presented before we started on the exercise which has caused so much unnecessary disturbance.
There is a conflict of interests of which Dr. Beeching rightly speaks, and I suggest that these interests cannot be reconciled by voluntary co-operation. It will not work out. It is for the State, in as flexible a manner as possible, to take the lead in tracking our future course in transport. I emphasise that the one industry about which we cannot be rigid is transport. We cannot set up a multitude of committee and then decide what we will do. I suggest that, with a general directive on the processes by which rationalisation should be carried out, it would be as well to let good transport men do the job for us.
The argument rages whether road vehicles should be made to pay by taxation their proper share towards road costs, or whether restrictive mileage should be placed upon road operatives. Should the C licences be dealt with much more ruthlessly? I do not know the

answers as yet, but I hope that when we come to the end of this year, with a new Government and with all the data which will then be available, we shall be able to see emerge a really rational, efficient industry carrying with it the knowledge and experience of men who were strangers to transport only three years ago but who have progressed so quickly and have got to Damascus much more rapidly than many of us thought they would.
I suggest to the Committee that the plans and policies of the Opposition during the past two years have been fully vindicated, not by the actions of our friends but by the Buchanan Report and the wiser reflections of the Railway Board over the past six months. The contributions made from those quarters now give us hope that at last that which was so shameful only three years ago can be brought on to the right path under a Labour Government.

4.54 p.m.

The Minister of Transport (Mr. Ernest Marples): In my view, and I do not say this arrogantly, the hon. Member for Southward (Mr. Gunter) has made a reasonable, constructive speech and it gave me a glimmer of hope that we may take this subject of transport away from the acrimony which surronds it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Yes, I was impressed by what the hon. Member said. He was allowed to have his say and I should be greatly obliged if I were allowed to have mine. The hon. Member is a Welshman, with all the passion and eloquence which that country produces, and he employed a number of striking phrases. "Early passion and present coyness" was one.
I assure the hon. Member that there has been no slowing down of closures. They are all treated on their merits as and when they come before us. I give him my word of honour that there has been no slowing down and that we shall do all we can until the General Election. We shall then have the election and we shall see what happens after that. The hon. Member said that publicly-owned industries aroused the worst in me. I do not think that that remark was justified, for the reason that in the almost five years during which I have been Minister we have given to the railways over £680 million for investment.
It cannot arouse the worst in a man if such a sum of money from the taxpayer is allocated to the railways for this sort of investment. It is far more than the party opposite ever gave to the railways. I am not complaining about that. All I say is that I do not think that hon. Members opposite should accuse me of not trying to make publicly-owned industries work when sums of money of that magnitude have been going to one of those industries.
The hon. Member said we cannot deal with transport section by section. He did not mention it today, but he has said that we ought to have had a comprehensive survey of transport including pipelines, sea, air, road and railway transport, before anything happened. At the beginning of my term of office I considered a comprehensive inquiry of that character. I rejected it because it would be too big and would take too long and would be out-of-date before it was finished. This has been shown by what happened in Sweden where, with a population of one-seventh of ours, a committee was appointed in 1953 to inquire into the principles of national transport policy. It took over nine years to report.
Hon. Members will remember that during the last nine years the number of private cars in this country has gone up two and a half times, so that the situation at the end of that period is not the same as it was at the beginning. In the end, the Swedes came to the conclusion that each form of transport should do what it was best suited for, and that there should be competition even within each form. This is precisely the line which we have taken in the last four and a half years. I decided that we could move faster by taking them separately, but in such a way that they could be related to each other and added up. This is why we had the Buchanan Report on towns, the Beeching Report on railways and the Rochdale Report on ports.
The hon. Member made a point about road and rail costs, and the comparative nature of the true track costs which road and rail should bear. We want to find out those costs. I can prove that on two grounds. First, we set up the Geddes Committee to go into the matter dispassionately and impartially, as I hope it will. Secondly, in the Department we

set up a branch so that we can submit to the Geddes Committee the Department's views in trying to hold the balance between road and rail. We shall try to give the true costs between road and rail.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: I am surprised at what the right hon. Gentleman has just said, because the terms of reference of the Geddes Committee have nothing to do with comparative costs between road and rail. Its terms of reference are that it should consider the licensing system of road vehicles. What has the Geddes Committee to do with comparative costs?

Mr. Marples: Surely these costs are relevant to what the licensing system should be. I have great respect for the right hon. Gentleman, but on this occasion he is wrong. If there is to be a licensing system it must necessarily take into account the true costs, otherwise it is irrelevant. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Yes, there is here a split of opinion on the Front Bench opposite. Anyway, we shall give all the evidence that we can.
I am not doing what the hon. Gentleman did. I shall not draw conclusions until all the evidence has been given to the Geddes Committee and the Committee has made its report. I shall not select just one piece of evidence, as the hon. Gentleman did today, a piece delivered by the Railways Board, and then say that this has destroyed a lot of other ideas. I want to look at the whole picture and, like a judge, have all the evidence before I arrive at a verdict.
The hon. Gentleman made a point about co-operation between road and rail, and quoted the road hauliers to the effect that they would not take part in the liner train scheme. He made a quotation which implied that they would be reluctant to take part in the liner train activities and that they would build special vehicles for themselves.

Mr. Gunter: I did not say anything of the sort. I said that the Chairman of the Road Haulage Association had said that the road hauliers would answer the liner train by the creation of a new type of road vehicle.

Mr. Marples: If I am wrong, I apologise, but I took the impression from the hon. Gentleman that they


would not patronise the liner trains. If I have misunderstood, I withdraw my remark, because I have no wish to impute to the hon. Gentleman something which he did not say.
What I would point out in this connection—I must be careful at this point in what I say—is that Mr. Ballantine said at the N.U.R. conference that the liner train service is
potentially the best-ever fast freight service".
There is no doubt that this is so. I believe that, if the system is adopted, it will, properly handled, be able to take a lot of freight off the road and on to rail. I think that the hon. Gentleman agrees with me on that. I say to the Committee and to the nation that I want this to happen. For this purpose, we as a Government are prepared to give the Railways Board the actual cash it needs for capital investment in the project. It would start off in a small way, say, £6 million, and then go on to £70 million, £80 million or £90 million, if it gets under way.
I want both sides, the road hauliers and the unions—I do not care who it is—to co-operate. I am sure that the road hauliers will co-operate, but the N.U.R. has so far been opposed to private hauliers, A licensees, taking goods to and from the railway terminals. If the N.U.R. declares that certain parts of the road haulage system will not be allowed to use the new liner trains, then no Minister of Transport in charge of the taxpayer's money could invest large sums with an artificial restriction on their use in that way.
Therefore, I say to right hon. and hon. Members opposite that I hope that they will use all their influence—I think that they will, and I understand that the hon. Gentleman is greatly in favour of the liner trains—both on the road haulage side and on the union side to induce a reasonable attitude in this respect.

Mr. Ernest Popplewell: If the right hon. Gentleman is really sincere about this, he should make his gesture and remove the ban which he has imposed upon the Railways Board being able to tender for wagons to run on the railways. This has an extremely important bearing upon the attitude of the union. If he

is sincere in what he says, he should direct his Department at once to inform Dr. Beeching that the Railways Board may be allowed to do such tendering.

Mr. Marples: I should not have said that that was a particularly relevant point to raise in this context. The railways can build for themselves what they want. If they want to own wagons, they can build precisely what wagons they like. There is no restriction placed on them.
I should like now to survey the whole subject of transport. By October this year, I shall have been Minister for nearly five years. There have been 22 Ministers of Transport during the last 45 years, an average of two years each, so perhaps I have not done too badly in what I call the "hot" seat. I know that the hon. Gentleman realises it, but I am not sure how many people outside the House of Commons appreciate the magnitude of our transport services. As he said, 16 per cent. of our gross national product, a very large percentage, goes on transport, and half of that goes on freight. During the time I have been Minister, we have given £1,460 million for investment purposes to the nationalised transport industry, road, rail, waterways, docks and harbours, and so on. Now, after spending that time at the Ministry I should like to give some of my thoughts to the Committee.
To my mind, three trends stand out at present and will continue over the next 10 or 15 years. The first is that the total movement of goods and people is rising steadily and will rise steadily. We must cater for it. Taking the period 1959–63, which is, virtually, my term of office, goods traffic by road and rail, in millions of ton-miles, rose by 13 per cent. Secondly, the share of traffic between the different types of transport is rapidly changing. In 1959, road took 61 per cent. and in 1963 it took 67 per cent. Personal travel by rail, bus and car, in million passenger miles, has risen 15 per cent. in the same four years.
The third trend—this is possibly the most crucial factor of all—is that the whole picture is dominated by the increasing ownership and use of private cars. There has been a 50 per cent. increase in my time as Minister, a quite extraordinary increase.
The hon. Member for Southwark knows transport as well as any of us. He has


been in it a long time. I agreed with so much of what he said today that I felt a stranger in this Committee. I agree with him that the technical characteristics of each form of transport should be the dominating factor. The different types of transport offer varying services because of their technical characteristics, and each type has inherent advantages and disadvantages.
In my period of office, I have tried to aim at two things. First, each type of transport must develop and exploit its full possibilities of technical development. Secondly—I think that this is, to some extent, where I part company with the hon. Gentleman—each type must do only what suits it best technically and must not be forced to provide services which can be better supplied by some other type. Nor must people or businesses be forced to use types of transport which are not the best for their purpose.
How can this be achieved? Transport needs are rarely the same. One family which is going on holiday may take price as their main concern. Another may be prepared to pay more for speed, for comfort, or for an easier journey for the children. When I went on a diesel-hydraulic train from Paddington to Bristol, I spoke to the fireman, and he told me that he was going to Cornwall for his holiday. I said, "You are all right; you will get a free pass", but he told me that he would be going by car, not by rail. I did not blame him in the slightest. He made that choice, even though he could have gone on the railway either free or at a reduced rate.
It is the same with goods. One exporter may need to get his goods to their destination quickly, to secure a contract. Another may be able to face a longer period of transit if the cost is smaller. Another may regard it as vital to avoid risk of damage to his goods. Goods from a factory near the railway terminal in Birmingham might well be best sent to another factory in London by rail, but, if the Birmingham factory were moved to the outskirts of Birmingham and the destination in the London area were moved to the North Circular Road, the goods might be better sent by road.
As the hon. Gentleman said, one cannot always visualise what the right

answer is. Therefore, the choice of transport service must be left to the user. Only he knows what he wants in price, speed, comfort and reliability, and the sum of many individual choices on this basis gives a clear indication of what is needed. Our transport system will then be sensitive to changes in what people want and in what transport operators can provide.
The only alternative to this, as I see it, is to have a central body to decide what services will be provided and to regulate, directly or indirectly, their use. I do not believe that anyone or any single organisation can do this. It would substitute one choice for the choice of many. It would be rigid and inflexible. It could not reflect the many different factors or the different individual needs for transport. But I say all this subject to the proviso that each type of transport pays the true cost. I agree with the hon. Gentleman. This is why one wants to search for the truth as to what the true costs are. There will be long arguments about it, but at the end of the day we shall be nearly right.
The second thing which I have always had in mind is the question of the structure of the nationalised transport undertakings. The Opposition have judged me a little unfairly in this respect. I believe that in the nationalised sector there is a built-in tendency to make units too big, with too many different activities to control. The argument starts very simply. There is, first, a call for integration. If the bus has to meet the train, the argument is that it can be done only if the buses and trains are owned and managed by the same organisation. This grows until all forms of transport must be under a single control.
This was the theory which was held before the 1947 Act. The argument is attractive superficially, but it is false, because where does one stop? Let us look at the parallels elsewhere. The motor car industry, for example, depends on the delivery of tyres and electrical equipment at the right time to meet the endless belt system. But, if we accept this argument, the motor car manufacturers should own and control the electrical equipment and tyre industries and everything else which goes to make a motor car. Then


it would be too big to be efficient. This is one of the difficulties. The Government are increasingly taking a hand in the running of our industry, and it is one of the dangers which must be faced, whichever party is in power. That is the second fundamental which I have had in mind.
The third fundamental—and I think that the hon. Member for Southwark will agree with me on this—is the compilation of basic information. Policy decisions must be based on comprehensive, factual information, systematically assembled. That is what we have done on a scale hitherto unknown in transport. For example, we have extended and improved our statistics and forecasting. The Hall Group brought them together in "The Transport Needs of Great Britain in the Next Twenty Years"; the Report on "The Reshaping of British Railways" was based on a massive study of goods and passenger traffic; the Rochdale Committee collected the basic information necessary to formulate a policy to modernise our ports; and the Buchanan and Crowther Reports, to which reference has been made, have also improved our knowledge.
Those are basic reports and landmarks, but the search for information must continue all the time. Our latest research is in the comprehensive transport surveys which relate transport, both public and private, to land use. The one in London which began in 1962—I then had an inkling of what the Buchanan Report would say, so we started early—will cost £750,000 and will be the most sophisticated transport survey ever made.
Having said that those are my fundamental considerations, let me deal with how they should apply to road and rail transport and shipping, because we cover a fairly big field at my Ministry. In my view, in 1959, the British Transport Commission—I do not think that hon. Members opposite quarrel with me about this—was too big and was controlling too many different activities. In other words, its size was such that first-class administrative principles could not be carried out, no matter who did the job. The Commission had 725,000 people working: for it and controlled many different activities. The 1962 Act set up the

separate British Railways Board. It is still a very large organisation, with 460,000 people, but it has a set task plus a clear brief.
The Commission was freed from the old restrictions on commercial freedom. There were still many restrictions on the railways in 1947, and I do not think that any hon. Member opposite has uttered a thankful word to me for removing some of them. The reshaping of the railways, which was Dr. Beeching's contribution, has been brought about very speedily considering the magnitude of the task, and Dr. Beeching should be congratulated on it. He said that the railways had been trying to do some things which other types of transport were, technically, more suited to do. A streamlined system was proposed which concentrated on those tasks which the railways could exploit and develop, such as the liner trains. There are others—for example, the special goods trains from Ford's, at Dagenham, to Hailwood and from the Hillman plant in Scotland to the Midlands. These trains travel at a tremendous speed every night, and they are to be encouraged.
The Government, and the next Conservative Government, are prepared to supply the investment for those purposes because it is perfectly proper that the railways should exploit their natural technical advantages and should refrain from doing things to which they are not suited.
Publicity, especially political, has centred around proposals for passenger closures. These must be carefully—

Mr. Percy Collick: I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Member, but I am trying to follow his line of argument. He has told us about the many committees which he set up and with which we are all familiar. The Conservative Party has been in office for 12½ years. We have had all these Committees. Can the Minister say when we shall get a transport policy?

Mr. Marples: If the hon. Gentleman wants a transport policy, he should look at "Socialist Commentary" to see what it says about the Socialist Party's transport policy. We have had a policy for some time. It may be a policy with which the hon. Gentleman does not agree in some respects, but that is not to say


that it is not good. That is probably the reason why it is a good policy.
As I was saying, publicity has centred round passenger closures. I understand why they arouse great passions. Closure proposals are carefully considered. We have had several Adjournment debates when we have given chapter and verse. We go into these matters very carefully. If there is no demand for railways, and it is proved that there is no demand, we do not want them. But if there is a demand for them, we have provided the investment. The electrification of the line between Liverpool, Manchester and London and the construction of the Victoria-Walthamstow line for the London Transport Board show that we are not frightened to provide money if people use the services. The mere fact that we are prepared to go ahead with the Channel Tunnel shows that we are not timid in providing new facilities if people will use them.
I hope that we will allow Dr. Beeching to get on with his work of modernising the railways and of trying to bring the new conception of liner trains and big goods trains into operation. I hope that they work, because one of the great hopes for the railways of the future is that they do those things which they are technically best suited to do.
We should also consider that part of the Transport Commission which was not concerned with the railways. The 1962 Act set up separate Boards—the Waterways Board, the Docks Board and the Transport Holding Company. Each of them, like the railways, was given a set task, a clear brief and an effective and concentrated management. All these concerns have done extremely well since they were set up in 1962. The Docks Board has done well under the separate management, concentrating on docks and not being distracted by the mammoth problems of the railways. The Waterways Board has done well, and so has the Transport Holding Company.

Mr. Arthur Holt: Mr. Arthur Holt (Bolton, West) rose—

Mr. Francis Noel-Baker: What about the workshops?

Mr. Marples: I have given way before. I have a lot to say. It would be very much better if the two hon. Members

catch the Chairman's eye so that they can make the points that they want to make. The hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. F. Noel-Baker) has made the point about the workshops before. No doubt he will be able to make it again in his own inimitable manner.
I should like to come to road haulage.

Mr. F. Noel-Baker: Workshops.

Mr. Marples: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will listen to what I have to say about road haulage.
In 1952, there were just over I million goods vehicles. In 1962, there were 1½ million. I agree that the licensing system which was appropriate in the 1930s is no longer appropriate to today's circumstances. That is why we set up the Geddes Committee, and I hope that we shall get somewhere with it.
We have made a big effort to step up the road programme. Government spending on new roads in 1954–55 amounted to £5 million. In 1964–65, it is £145 million. It is planned that in 1968–69 the figure will be £200 million.
I have always said in this Committee that there are two aspects of the road problem. One is between the towns and the other is in the towns. I have said that between the towns—that is, where the car moves—it is a relatively easier problem than in the towns themselves. Of course, the problem with the car is when it stops, especially when it is outside one's house. In between the towns we get access to the site and build relatively easily, although construction is slow in this country because of the safeguards which Parliament imposed, and very rightly imposed, on the Ministry of Transport. The figures of motorway mileage built are: by 1959, 81½ miles, by 1964, 292 miles; and in the early 70s there will be 1,000 miles. The same happens with trunk roads, like the A.1, which has improved out of all recognition.
I am quite certain that those hon. Members who are motorists will notice tremendous activity over the whole country. In the towns this is the challenge of all time, whichever party is in power. We have today three policies—short-term, medium-term and long-term. In the short term, we have to make the best use of traffic engineering. We have


not done that to the same extent as in America, largely because the Americans are a generation ahead of us with the motor car. We started first in London in 1959 with the Pink Zone and in 1960 we established the London Traffic Management Unit. Parliament gave the Ministry of Transport power for five years to control London traffic. Those powers will expire in April next year when the whole set-up for traffic engineering will go to the Greater London Council. It is not the function or the responsibility of the central Government to do this. It was only by a freak that in the 1934 Act the Minister was made responsible for London.
We have 25 to 30 per cent. more traffic in London today than we had in 1959 and yet the traffic is moving faster. We are introducing one major scheme a month and there are 40 minor schemes going on in London as well. There is also a number pending for introduction over the next two years.
One thing worries me. London has been successful because we have central control over a very wide physical conurbation. The same principles do not apply in some of the other big conurbations in the country. We sometimes get seven or eight local authorities who are asked to get together on a voluntary basis in the matter, and it is sometimes a little difficult. We have had a lot of trouble even in setting up the comprehensive surveys because certain local authorities feel that their status is greater than that of another local authority.
I believe that if the local authorities in the major conurbations do not measure up to their responsibility it will be up to the central Government to make sure that they do. We must be careful because the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Collick) is here. Birkenhead Corporation is not always as reasonable as its Member of Parliament. In Liverpool we get every local authority agreeing that the second Mersey crossing should be between points A and B, except the Birkenhead local authority. I am not really getting at Birkenhead.

Mr. Collick: The Minister says that there are occasions when the hon. Member for Birkenhead is not in agreement with the Birkenhead local

authority. I would like him to give me one example.

Mr. Marples: No, I did not say that. Indeed, I paid the hon. Gentleman a tribute. I said that he was more reasonable than Birkenhead. However, if he cares to have a private chat with me afterwards, I am sure that I shall convert him on this as I did on the railways.
In the medium term, I think that we can help in the towns by increasing road investment. New motorways and trunk roads help a lot, as do by-passes, and keep traffic out of the towns. In the towns straightforward road improvements can do a lot. We are spending a great deal more money on them now. In 1959 we spent under £20 million; in 1963–64, £50 million and in 1968–69 we propose to spend £140 million on urban roads.
Now I come to the long term in the towns, and this is going to be a dilemma not only in this country but in every other civilised country in the world, and it does not matter what money is spent. In San Francisco the authorities have said that there shall be no more expressways built because they are destroying the town. There is great controversy in America about the merits of private cars and public transport in urban areas.
The Buchanan Report said that we needed a radically new approach. I am glad to say that that Report has been a best seller all over the world. It was reproduced in America and sent to every single State. That is something of which Britain can, be proud. We are following up the recommendations of Buchanan as quickly as possible. We have set up a joint urban planning group to give advice to local authorities. Secondly, we have started in each major conurbation a comprehensive land use and transport survey. Thirdly, we are discussing with transport operators how to make public transport more attractive.
The Buchanan and Crowther Reports considered how to alter the towns, to rebuild them, in order to come to terms with the motor car. But the other side of the coin is that if we are to redesign and spend a lot of money on the towns so that they may come to terms with the motor car, we must also try to redesign the vehicle so that it may come to terms with the towns. Therefore, we have set


up a new group of a similar structure and with similar methods as Buchanan, with a steering group, and a working party. In the steering group we have people who are normally too busy to serve on a committee but whose advice is wanted; and the working party will be working full-time on the details. We have Sir Harold Roxbee Cox as Chairman, and the group is going to examine the problem of motor cars in the cities.
I now come to the one thing on roads which is the most baffling problem that any Minister can face, and that is the problem of road safety. Last year 7,000 people died on the roads in the United Kingdom and many thousands more were injured. I am always appalled at the misery which these road accidents cause, particularly when I visit hospitals and see some of those who have been injured when riding motor cycles, very often because they were not wearing a helmet.
Civilised countries all over the world suffer from this problem. Let us take the fatal casualties per 10,000 vehicles. In Britain in 1960 the figure was 7·8; in Western Germany it was 15·5 and in Sweden 6·9. Discussions are going on in the Ministry now on the subject and we hope to be taking very shortly some measures of a nature that will help. As I say, it is one of the most baffling of all problems because ultimately it is a question of personal responsibility and social conscience. Too often it is thought to be the right thing to do to get away with it in the motor car. What really will be the most wonderful factor in this will be when the man next door thinks that you are wrong in getting away with a motoring offence. At present he thinks it a good thing to do because he says to himself, "But for the Grace of God there go I".
One of the encouraging things in this respect is the success that we have had with children. We have had more success in teaching children road safety than in any other direction. In 1930 1,685 children aged under 14 were killed; in 1938 1,130 were killed and in 1963, 809. So we have halved the number killed in 1930. We really are having success with the children and I only wish that we could have the same success with the grown-ups.
Now I come to another part of my speech, and that is shipping.

Mr. F. Noel-Baker: Is not the right hon. Gentleman going to say anything about the M4?

Mr. Marples: If the hon. Gentleman wants a progress report I will give it to him. It is hoped that the elevated section on the Great West Road will be opened late in 1964 or early in 1965 and that in September the year after next the Severn Bridge will be opened; but the part which will not be opened will be that in Berkshire. We are having a little difficulty in Berkshire.

Mr. Archie Manuel: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the question which is troubling many people and which has been asked several times? It is about the control of heavy vehicle licences and those large vehicles which line the road and cause so many accidents. When the right hon. Gentleman talks about the design and size of motor cars, is he also thinking of the commercial and heavy vehicles?

Mr. Marples: Yes, and we are trying to get standard dimensions with the Continent of Europe so that we all go together. Those vehicles not only operate here, but they go to Europe, too. When all the European Ministers of Transport meet at our regular meetings, we are engaged on the problems of trying to get the right size, weight, axle loads and power-to-weight ratio.
I come now to ports and then to shipping. When arguing about cost, the curious thing about shipping is that almost 50 per cent. of the cost of transporting goods over long distances by sea is accounted for by the cost in the ports. This is the case in England. When I was in America, I asked whether it applied there, too, and I have some figures from America which bear out that exactly the same experience occurs there as we have here. For example, 49 per cent. of the cost of canned meat going from Chicago to Dusseldorf is port charges. In sending synthetic fibres the long distance from Cleveland to Strasbourg, port costs account for 48 per cent. of the cost. Therefore, if we can bring down the costs in the ports by a quick turnround, using proper facilities, we will go a long way to help our export drive.
We have had the Rochdale Committee and the Harbours Act. I am grateful to the Opposition for their assistance with that Act. Hon. Members opposite will, I think, agree that we have wasted no time in setting up the National Ports Council. It has made up its mind on the broad outline of reorganisation and I hopee that in the future, from the money which we have made available for investment, we will get great and imaginative port development schemes.
On shipping, I made an announcement at 3.30 this afternoon. I will not dwell on it now, because it would be out of order to do so. We have the greatest and the largest merchant navy in the world. As a Government, our main concern is to defend the concept of shipping as a free international service, because this free international service has created shipping services cheaper than any other system would have done. Here again we have moved, because we have a shipping advisory panel and our relations with the shipping industry are closer than ever before. We made our announcement today to show our willingness as a Government to stand up to any country which wishes to interfere with the jurisdiction of Her Majesty's Government, whatever its political complexion might be, in this matter. That shows an earnest of our intention.
In shipbuilding, despite foreign competition, orders have not fallen off. The credit scheme helped and it at once brought a reaction. It gave the industry a good period in which to reorganise itself. I am glad to say that in the first six months of 1964, the shipbuilding firms obtained orders totalling 605,000 tons. Their total order book is now 2½ million tons, or nearly ¾ million tons more than at this time last year. That must not, however, blind us to the very great issues that our shipbuilding firms face. Everything depends upon their progress in rationalisation and the more efficient use of labour. I am having discussions with the leaders of the industry next week.
Therefore, to summarise, on railways we have had the reorganisation of the management structure, the technical Reshaping Report and massive investment. In road haulage, we are looking at the whole structure of licensing under the Geddes Committee. On roads, between

the towns we are making great progress. In the towns, for the short-term we have introduced traffic engineering and in the long-term we have Buchanan. As to ports and the sea, we have the Rochdale Report and the National Ports Council and, again, large investment. In shipping, we are closer to the leaders of the industry than ever before. In shipbuilding we are giving the firms time to reorganise. We have done such things as starting the Channel Tunnel.
When coming to my Ministry in 1959, it was my aim at least to try to tackle every aspect of what is a fairly heavy job. Some things, of course, are not yet done. There are lots of things to be done—there always will be. There will never be a point in time when we have a transport debate and there is not a lot to do. Any Minister of Transport who was satisfied should go at once, because in this rapidly moving industry one can never be satisfied. I think, however, that what I have said today is an impressive catalogue. I am not ashamed of the contribution that the Government have made and I am sure that the next Conservative Government will do exactly the same in the next Parliament.

5.35 p.m.

Mr. W. H. Alldritt: I should like, first, to express the hope that hon. Members will extend to me their usual courtesy in this my first speech in the House of Commons and forgive me if I tend to use rather copious notes. They are, in fact, a mark of respect to you, Dr. King, and to hon. Members. It is not my intention, in accordance with the custom of the House, to be controversial. I listened with care, however, to what the Minister of Transport had to say, and it may, therefore, appear at a certain point that what I have to say is, in fact, controversial. I hope it will be accepted that this was not my intention.
It would be fitting that I should first refer to my predecessor, the late David Logan. He was the oldest Member of the House of Commons. I was reminded on my first day here that he was much loved. Indeed, that can be understood. He championed the cause of the underprivileged and, in so doing, he did not hesitate to have his own Government defeated in the cause of social justice.
Those who knew David Logan—and I was privileged to be one of them—knew that one could not talk or listen to him without his mentioning the importance of the home. It was his ambition to see the eradication of social injustice and that man should have his inherent right to shelter. It was, therefore, typical of him that, although his last speech in the House of Commons was in an education debate, during the course of it he said the following:
We want men, women and children to have the benefits of good social conditions. No nation can be great unless the home is happy and unless the children have good moral character and fibre. Fancy schemes are of no use; it is the fibre of the home that counts."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd January, 1959; Vol. 598, c. 481.]
I could not hope to emulate that much-loved man. Nevertheless, I shall do all in my power to eradicate social injustice.
Perhaps I might also mention at this point that I am only the third Member for the Scotland constituency who has come to the House of Commons. The first was T. P. O'Connor, who served for 34 years. He was followed by my predecessor, who served for 35 years. That is 79 years in all, records which, I hope, will not be broken by me.
I want to talk about my constituents and the problems which have arisen because of certain proposals which have been made. We have little or no amenity within the Scotland Division. The amenity lies along the banks of the Mersey to Southport. It is now proposed that this amenity shall be denied to the people and, in addition, that industry shall also be embarrassed by the closing of the Liverpool-Southport Railway.
Only this week, when talking on cost at a Press conference, the North-Western lines manager stated:
This line has a heavy morning and evening peak.
That, of course, is not a profound statement. It is a fact which is well known and common to all transport undertakers. It seemed to me, however, that because of this we might look at the implications of this closure. It would seem that the first is alternative transport and the second highways.
The alternative transport will, of course, be public service vehicles, but

who will provide them? Will anybody? Because whoever provides the service will be involved in heavy capital costs, and, indeed, will face a heavy loss—that is, of course, if we accept the reasons for the closing of Liverpool-Southport line. Assuming, however, that passenger service vehicles are forthcoming, who will provide the crews? Already the bus operators are short of crews. Indeed, the City of Liverpool requires some 300 additional drivers, and even if the foregoing difficulties can be overcome, what is to happen in bad weather—snow, fog and ice? Is the national product to suffer because many thousands of workers will be late or absent through no fault of their own? At least the railways got them to work, even in those conditions.
Now I come to the highways. The right hon. Gentleman, as I well know, has an intimate knowledge of this area. He will, therefore, know that all the traffic this closure will generate must pass through the Scotland Division. Already the roads are congested and serious delays take place; the accident rate is high. Are we perforce, in these circumstances, to make the lives of those who are forced to live along those roads worse than they are at the moment, when the conditions are bad already? It may well be said that improvements can be made which will eliminate these particular problems which I have outlined, but the elimination of one problem creates another. Road improvement on the scale required would, in fact, mean the demolition of homes, new and old, and already Liverpool has the worst housing problem in this country.
The improvements would require the consent of the Minister of Transport, and it may be interesting to note that in a report produced recently it is estimated that to resolve some of Liverpool's road problems the following will be necessary, firstly, an inner motorway costing £31 million; 22 miles of primary motorways outside the central area and costing £50 million; district distributors costing £15 million; and a second Mersey crossing at £8 million, and probably a third crossing at an estimated cost of £14 million; in all, to satisfy Liverpool's basic needs, £118 million worth of expenditure.
Now perhaps we can look at this figure in relation to the provision which has been made by the right hon. Gentleman for the whole Merseyside conurbation. The allocation for the years 1965–66, 1966–67 and 1967–68 is £3·5 million per annum. Indeed I have cause to wonder, I think quite reasonably, whether the £3·5 million will be achieved. For example, the Ministry of Transport indicated to the City of Liverpool last year that if it were prepared to make a substantial start on certain major projects and those schemes were spread over three years, loan sanction would be forthcoming. The City of Liverpool has carried out its part of the bargain, but the sanction has not been given, and the result is that we shall find it necessary to revise our five-year capital programme and to reduce our estimates for 1964 by £19,500 and for 1965 by £763,000, and this in a time of great need. I would, therefore, suggest that it would be unwise, in view of what was said, for the Liverpool—Southport line to be closed, particularly at this juncture, and a burden added to road congestion which, it would appear, will not be overcome during the course of the next few years.
The people of the Scotland constituency suffer atrocious conditions, but they are warm-hearted and responsible. I hope that they will have cause in the future to respond and to show their warm-heartedness to this Committee because it will not allow social considerations to be overridden by financial considerations.
In conclusion, let me thank you, Dr. King, and the members of the Committee for their tolerance to me this day.

5.46 p.m.

Sir Richard Nugent: It falls to me to have the pleasure and privilege of congratulating the hon. Member for Liverpool, Scotland (Mr. Alldritt) on the admirable maiden speech that he has just made to the Committee. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I know that he has already achieved distinction in local government on the Liverpool City Council, particularly with his interest in roads, as his well-argued speech has well demonstrated now.
I believe that when the hon. Member's great predecessor, T. P. O'Connor, was sitting in the House, George Bernard Shaw used to have "cracks" at O'Connor and, in "John Bull's Other Island", quipped him, "This was the sort of stuff which would only go down in the Scotland Division of Liverpool".
I can assure the hon. Member that the stuff he has delivered today goes down very well here. He referred to the remarkable—indeed, the unique-record of his constituency in having had only two previous Members of Parliament with an immense longevity of membership of 44 and 35 years each, and he hoped not to beat those records. I think that after hearing him today we hope he will, and that we shall hear him many times in the future.
I would refer to two achievements of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport during the past five years. Throughout that time he has been at the centre of the battle, with brickbats flying in all directions, and again today we have skirmished on the traditional battleground, the railways, with which we are all familiar. It may be that we sometimes lose sight of the major things which have been achieved in this time, and the first one I want to refer to is one which, I think, is not controversial, and that is the achievement, over these five years, in establishing that transport is an essential part of planning. This is summed up in the name of Colin Buchanan and his admirable Report. My right hon. Friend referred to it, but I should like to say a few words about it.
I was sitting this morning as Chairman of the London Regional Planning Conference, which, substantially, covers the South-East Region. There, we now accept as quite commonplace that we have a panel of the planning officers of each county, a panel of the clerks of each county, and, in addition, we have a sub-panel on transport which has on it representatives of British Railways, representatives of London Transport, and the officer of the L.C.C. who deals with the survey of London traffic. We accept as normal now that any county making its plans for population and employment automatically takes into consideration transport needs at the same time.
During those five years the ideas that now seem completely obvious to us have


only just finally been brought home by the massive impact of the remarkable Report by Dr. Buchanan. He has brought home to us the realities of living with the universal motor car, which he so aptly called "this beloved monster", which everybody wishes to have and cherishes, but what problems it makes for the whole community! Just to mention a detail, his Report has shown that town planning is a function of the activities of each building in the town. He produced a brilliant analysis of the six categories of building for this purpose, as well as some very valuable feasibility studies. There is no doubt that the Report will have a decisive influence on urban development for the next generation at least.
My right hon. Friend appointed the Buchanan Committee. I am sure that he would be the last person to wish in any way to reduce the great credit due to Dr. Buchanan. Nevertheless, my right hon. Friend appointed the Committee and gave it the right terms of reference, and, therefore, there must be great and lasting credit to him and to our Government for having done this. Today every planning authority in the country is reviewing its development plans in the light of Buchanan, and is grappling with the ever worsening problems of urban congestion and redevelopment.
Broadly, there are four methods by which to do this. One is to move out some of the activities of the town—industry, commerce, and so on—and start new towns. The second is to redesign urban centres. The third—my right hon. Friend referred to this as the short-term solution—is the new disciplines of traffic engineering which he himself has demonstrated so ably in respect of the London traffic problem. This is not just a short-term solution. I am certain that the disciplines of traffic engineering are a necessary part of whatever we do with our towns in the future. The fourth is improved public transport, which must play an ever greater part in the life of our towns. Let us not forget that to the extent to which we fail to use these four methods, we shall end up with a fifth factor, which is the residual chaos.
All this covers what is really a revolutionary change in planning. We now have to face that we are changing from

the old system of planning by negative control, which, very broadly speaking, said that people could do what they like and build what they like provided that they did not infringe certain established amenities, and rights of other people. It is no longer possible for people to have such scope to build and do what they like. We are changing to a world where, living with the universal motor car, we have to evolve positive comprehensive plans. This is the only way in which we shall be able to live comfortably and safely with the universal motor car and the great densities of population now growing up.
That is a revolutionary change and presents the most enormous problems to every planning authority. My right hon. Friend has referred to the planning group that he set up and to other bodies which are carrying out further studies for him, but I am sure that he would be the first to agree that at present there is an enormous lack of knowledge of what to do and what the implications are if planning authorities follow this plan or that plan. I should like to suggest a thought to my right hon. Friend which I hope will appeal to him.
In the engineering world, with which my right hon. Friend is very familiar, when new projects are being attempted it is customary to set up models in order to investigate how the project might work out when it is tackled in different ways. A very good example of that is the project for the Concord supersonic plane. The Zuckerman Committee was set up to construct a number of models, and, as a result of it, the Concord was evolved. This is a common technique in the engineering world, and I suggest to my right hon. Friend that it is one which might usefully be applied to the planning and the providing of the needs of modern traffic.
I suggest that my right hon. Friend should set up a top-grade team capable of constructing models of this kind worked out in final detail, including costs. To illustrate my point. Dr. Buchanan, in his admirable Report, considered the application of his ideas to four cities or city areas. That was the beginning of what might be called a feasibility study, but it needs to go beyond that, working it out into the ultimate costs of each project, so that


the planning authority and the local people, who will have to live with what is done, can have some idea of what choices are laid before them in this extremely complex picture. Professor McKenzie admirably described this by saying that what we want is a series of alternative Utopias from which we can choose which one we like best and that we are prepared to put up with the contra-indications which will inevitably go with whichever one we choose.
We have already some useful examples in the new towns, Birmingham and Coventry have already done some massive and imaginative central city renewal, and there is a great deal in the cities of the United States. As my right hon. Friend very probably knows, in America a good deal of this has been done, not so much by Government as by private research foundations, such as Ford, which have set up teams to study the subject and produce models.
I pass this thought on to my right hon. Friend. I believe that it is a valuable one. If he and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government would set up such a team and give a lead to this idea, possibly universities and some of the charitable foundations might set up similar ones so that we could begin to give a picture of what this means, what it is worth and what the implications are. If this could be started, I feel that it would be very valuable to all of us.
In leaving this topic, I should like to record my congratulations to my right hon. Friend on what I believe is a very major achievement in making the community as a whole aware that transport today is a basic part of planning and in starting the process of thought of how we are to meet the massive problem that we now have.
The second achievement to which I should like to refer—here I am on more controversial ground, ground over which the hon. Member for Southwark (Mr. Gunter) has already trodden—is the Beeching Plan for the railways and the modernisation of our railways. I had some personal experience of this when I was serving in my right hon. Friend's Ministry. I found the railways a fascinating subject and became to some extent acquainted with it, though no more than as an amateur.

Mr. Popplewell: That was before Beeching.

Sir R. Nugent: We had then made quite a useful start. I congratulate my right hon. Friend on picking Beeching, getting him into the job, setting him to work preparing a plan for the modernisation of the railways and then putting it into action, which he is now doing so successfully. I do not agree with the hon. Member for Southwark that Beeching's survey was incomplete. I believe that it was a very remarkable survey. All the railway experts said that it was quite impossible to make a survey of this kind. Nevertheless, this man, of great ingenuity and energy, devised the necessary techniques to do it. The survey was very convincing and a sound base for the plan which he put to the country and which my right hon. Friend adopted.
The losses on the railways at the time were running at a totally unacceptable level—as they still are. In 1962, there was an enormous annual loss of £160 million, which, in terms of Income Tax, would mean an extra 6d. on the standard rate. The cash aspect is bad enough, but one must add to this the waste of manpower and capital installations through under-use. This cannot be afforded by a country where the needs both of developing industries and of other industries which are short of manpower make it totally unacceptable to see such enormous waste on the railways.
It must also be miserable to the men themselves to be idle, or to seem idle most of the time. I am sure that hon. Members opposite who are expert about trade unions will agree that, inevitably, an industry in that situation finds that its workers are always at the end of the wage queue. Whatever increases they may manage to get they are still at the end of the line. The situation is bad for everyone.
When the Beeching Plan came out, I supported it. I thought it right, although closures are unpopular and unpleasant when they occur. But one cannot justify retaining branch lines which are scarcely used. After all, even if only one person uses a line he can claim that it should not be closed. One can always, indeed, claim that people might want to use it. But there


are safeguards against hardship when a closure is proposed. I am quite sure that road transport is adequate to meet the needs. [HON. MEMBERS: "How?"] By putting on additional bus services. That is a far more efficient way of doing it and is certainly a better use of resources.
On the positive side of the Beeching Plan, passenger and freight services have been improved and modernised. No one hopes more warmly than I that Dr. Beeching will succeed with his longdistance liner services, which I am sure are directly designed to get the full technical advantages of modern railways.

Mr. Collick: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that alternative bus services are adequate for the use of his own constituents affected by the closing of railways?

Sir R. Nugent: My views are well known in my constituency. Naturally, I do not like having to oppose the feelings of many of my constituents, many of whom are normally my supporters. But I have made it plain that I support the Beeching Plan and have confidence that my right hon. Friend will take a fair decision after he has had the report of the transport users' consultative committee. On that I must rest. I think that is a fair enough answer and I am content to hear what is said.
I was saying that Dr. Beeching's positive contribution is to improve freight and passenger services to top modern standards so that they will meet the needs of the community and will, I hope, attract back traffic that they have been losing.
Again, his achievements in management are already to be seen by the reduction of the deficit last year by £18 million, despite the fact that he had to cover an additional wage claim. This is remarkable progress. This is an enormously difficult industry in which to improve the whole tone of management, to get the team working together, but I believe that Dr. Beeching is doing something greatly to the benefit of the community as a whole and of the railwaymen themselves.
I was astonished when hon. Members opposite decided to oppose the Beeching

Plan. I know that they said that there must be a new survey of transport, but that was only a smoke screen. Their conference with the railway unions on the matter was a most retrograde step. They claim to be the party of modernisation, but here, when the first real test came in something unpopular and unpleasant, they lost their nerve and backed out. This attitude is not worthy of their aims and policy. The modernisation of the country is basic to prosperity and that must mean shifting men and resources from one industry to another as one industry fails and another expands. Here was the basic test. What did hon. Members opposite do? They ran away.
I am with both my right hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Southwark in saying that the right approach to the question of road haulage is that the Geddes Committee should ascertain the cost of road transport. I agree that this is basic. No investment policy for the country can be accurate unless we know what each kind of transport uses in resources both of capital and maintenance.
is to give traders the kind of transport they want to use for their particular circumstances. The solution proposed by hon. Members opposite is to bring road haulage into a great nationalisation scheme under the heading of an integrated transport policy, but that is Having done this, the right answer really a pipe dream.
When I was at the Ministry I saw the relationship between British Road Services and British Railways. They worked in almost watertight compartments. There was no bridge between them. That sort of thing does not happen in business. The right way is to let the trader decide what he wants, having first made sure that each system of transport is properly competent in terms of national resources.
It is for these two broad reasons that I am glad to put on record my congratulations to my right hon. Friend on two massive achievements in transport—the modernisation of our towns to deal with traffic and the modernisation of the railways to meet the needs of the country.

6.8 p.m.

Mr. Philip Noel-Baker: I join the right hon. Member for Guildford (Sir R. Nugent) in saying that it is a great pleasure to express warm congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Scotland (Mr. Alldritt). We congratulate him on an admirable maiden speech. My hon. Friend was right about one thing. We all loved his predecessor and I feel certain that we shall soon come to feel for him the same warm sense of affection and respect. I hope that we shall hear him soon again and often.
The Minister knows that I hold him in personal regard and that I have a high sense of admiration for his sporting achievements in the mountains, both on rocks and skis. I hope that he will therefore forgive me for some other things that I shall say.
On Monday night, he told the Institute of Transport that, with his many preoccupations as a Cabinet Minister, he had had no time for thinking out questions of policy. I am sure that his audience greatly appreciated his candour, and so will the Committee. Many people had already reached the same conclusion about him without his help. Not that he has had no policy. He has had a great deal of policy and almost all of it bad. He has had a great deal of policy based on a minimum of thought. He will be remembered as the true author of the Beeching Report.
Hon. Members will recollect that within three weeks of his appointment to his present office he instructed his Parliamentary Secretary to use the following language:
The second feature is that the whole railway system will have to contract … we have to have a smaller type of railway system than in the past."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th November, 1959; Vol. 613, c. 371.]
What humbug it was to say that the Beeching Report was a scientific study of the railway problem! It was a political pamphlet written to support the arbitrary and uninformed instructions which the Minister had given to Dr. Beeching before his work began, and with all its main conclusions preconceived.
The Minister will be remembered as the man who, when the transport needs

of the country were to multiply by four or five times in the next few decades, did much to reduce and hamstring the best and most important part of our transport system, British Railways.
What was the problem which the Minister faced when he took up his office? There were three facts of supreme significance, all known to him. First, the population of the country was increasing fast. We are told by the Government that by 2000 A.D. we shall have 74 million people in our islands; 22 million more than we have now; an increase of 44 per cent. in 36 years.

Mr. Wilfred Proudfoot: I draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that the population of these islands has doubled in his own lifetime.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Not quite. My lifetime has been rather long, but the population of the country was a little less than 40 million when I was born.
The second fact which the Minister had to face was one which he has mentioned today, namely that the number of our motor vehicles will repaidly increase. In 1948, 16 years ago, there were 3,500,000 such vehicles on the road; in 1964 there are 11,500,000; and in another 16 years, by 1980, there will be 22 million, double what we have now.
The third fact, which he mentioned himself this afternoon, is that, whatever party is in power, even the Conservative Party, the standard of living of the people will rise. The progress of science and engineering will see to that. The Government have set a target for the growth of the gross national product by 4 per cent. per year. At 4 per cent. per year, the output of wealth will have doubled by 1980. Personal incomes will have greatly risen and there will be far more personal travel than there is now. There will be 500 million to 600 million tons more goods to be transported from the factories to the users and from the factories to the ports.
With this prospect facing us in less than 20 years—the prospect of a vast increase in population and in the number of motor vehicles and the doubling of personal travel and the transport of freight—the Minister has proposed to close two-fifths of our railway system; to tear up the lines and to sell them for


scrap; to close down many hundreds of stations and many hundreds of goods depôts; to cut off rail connections with the holiday towns and districts; and to cut out stopping trains. If that policy were pursued, all the vast new traffic, which the increase of population and G.N.P. will inevitably cause, will have to go by road, as well as a good deal of what in recent times has gone by rail. The Minister has the effrontery to call this the modernisation of our transport system.
Of course, it suits some people very well. It suits the big contractors who build the roads. It suits the hauliers. Above all, it suits the oil interests who seem to have so sinister a power with the present Government. But for the nation it spells disaster, disaster which cannot be averted simply by increasing the mileage of motorways. As Dr. Beeching has belatedly discovered, motorways cost a lot of money and involve the nation in all sorts of hidden costs which will inevitably mount in years to come.
Of course the railways need modernisation. They needed it desperately when they were taken over from private enterprise in 1947. In 1952, the British Transport Commission had made plans for many things which are still required today. Do hon. Members recall the Commission's protests against the Government's folly, protests made in its Report of 1952 when it said:
The announcement of the Government's policy on transport … brought to a halt a number of schemes designed to produce a rationalised internal transport system. … In some minor directions it has still been possible to effect economies and promote efficiency by co-ordination … but the advancing prospect of realising major economies in this field disappeared so far as the carriage of goods was concerned, or has at best been very seriously constricted.
The Commission said much the same about the carriage of passengers. Alas, the Commission's protests went unheeded. Its schemes, which would have revolutionised our transport system, were abandoned because of what we believe to be the unpatrioitic, doctrinaire hostility to public enterprise of Ministers and hon. Members opposite.
What should modernisation of the railways have meant since right hon. Gentlemen opposite came to power in 1951? I mention only a few salient

points. There should have been a far larger and more ambitious provision of vehicles for what the Americans call the "piggy-backing" of goods—vehicles which take their loads from door to door but which do their long haul on rail; vehicles which could be driven on to a truck and driven off again, or which could have double wheels, one set for road and one for rail.

Sir R. Nugent: This is almost impossible because of the gauge of our railways, a penalty of the work of our pioneers. In America there is a very much higher rail gauge and the piggyback system is possible there, but in this country it has proved almost technically impossible.

Mr. Noel-Baker: With great respect, I do not believe it.
Modernisation should also have meant far swifter and more comprehensive mechanisation of the loading of freight, by the methods adopted in Japan—I have seen them at work. There should have been a major effort to improve the riding qualities and comfort of passenger stock. There should have been the provision of intercom telephony for engine-drivers and radar apparatus for warning of blocked lines ahead. If we can afford such instruments for bombers, surely we can afford them for passenger trains as well? Indeed, I think that we should provide every useful instrument for those who have the great responsibility of driving locomotives of any kind.
There should have been far greater improvements to the permanent way, especially the very large-scale welding of rails which has been carried so far in other countries. There should have been a concerted drive, in co-operation with local authorities, chambers of commerce, heads of industries, and so on, to try to improve the services of branch lines, and stopping trains—efforts to make the service fit the need, and to attract new passengers to travel by rail.
The Minister has just decided to close the line from Derby, Friargate, to Nottingham, Victoria. I am certain that the kind of action which I have suggested could have attracted a large volume of new traffic to that line, and it would have been well worth the effort, if he had only made it.
But far more important than any of these is the electrification of the main lines. I make bold to say that, without electrification, there can be no real modernisation in any significant meaning of the word. In 1952 the B.T.C. had already decided to carry electrification very fast and very far. Later, Sir Brian Robertson, now Lord Robertson, after visiting France and other countries where they had electrified, and after visiting the United States where they had dieselised, said:
We are going in for complete electrification of British Railways, using diesel locomotives as a temporary expedient until the work of electrification can be carried out".
What are the advantages of electrification which have so attracted all our railway leaders except the Minister and Dr. Beeching?
The trains are faster. One can travel from Paris to Brussels every hour, on the hour, faster than one can fly. Rail travel from Paris to Munich competes with air in speed, and the trains are incomparably more comfortable and well equipped.
The electric locomotive costs much less than the diesel. I believe that the figure is about £85,000 for the electric locomotive, and £120,000 or £130,000 for the diesel.
The electric locomotive does 600,000 miles of running without major overhaul. The diesel does 250,000.
Electricity can be produced from British coal which is in ample supply. Diesel locomotives need imported oil, paid for in foreign exchange.
Electricity gives far greater flexibility of service, especially for commuter traffic.
But, above all, the costs of operating electric trains are far lower than those of diesel traction. In Germany and Japan they have proved to be less than two-thirds of the cost of diesel, an economy which would go very far towards meeting the deficit which British Railways have made.
I understand that the electrification of the Manchester to London line is going forward. The Minister spoke of it this afternoon. It is going forward, after a very hard fight by those who tried to scrap it in 1961. But in his report Dr. Beeching made no mention of any

further electrification at all. On the contrary, in the summary of his proposals on pages 59 to 60, he says in point 14:
Continued replacement of steam by diesel locomotives for main line traction, up to a probable requirement of at least 3,750–4,250 …
If we have 4,000 diesels in operation on main line trains, this means a bill for imported oil of £60 million a year—£60 million on our balance of payments, when we might be using British coal. This decision not to electrify the railways is by far the worst of the many bad decisions which the Minister has made.
In a few weeks he will be leaving his office. In our debate on the Buchanan Report a few months ago I tried to show what his policy has meant to the average citizen, by taking examples from the town of Derby. Last year, 40 million tons of coal were carried from the pithead by road. As a result, four lorries a minute, each carrying 10 tons of coal, passed through Derby every working hour. The noise, the fumes and the dirt constitute an intolerable nuisance, which the people of all parties bitterly resent. Now to coal there has been added a heavy traffic in steel, all of which should go by rail.
There is great traffic congestion in Derby. The incidence of road accidents is very high. I shall not elaborate on what I said in our last debate, but since then there have been other examples of the Minister's policy which have aroused the keen hostility of my constituents. There is his discrimination against the railway workshops, which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Mr. F. Noel-Baker). I will only recall that there are more than 14,000 railway workers in Derby, South, and on this question they were against the Minister to a man.
There is strong feeling in Derby about the closure of the Derby, Friargate to Nottingham line, to which I have referred. There is still stronger feeling among people of all parties about the new proposals to close most of the intermediate stations on the lines from Derby to Manchester, from Buxton to Manchester, and from Derby to Sheffield. I took part in the proceedings of the


Consultative Committee a week or two ago. I assure the Minister that, if he goes forward with these lamentable plans, many people in Derby and Derbyshire will vote against his Government as a result.
I raise one other Derby point on which the Minister's policy has aroused great indignation. He proposes to close, at 3½. months' notice, seven railway depots in Derby for coal distribution and to concentrate the coal at a single depot, St. Mary's Wharf. This wharf is on the other side of the River Derwent, away from the main area of the borough, which constitutes 80 per cent. of Derby.
There are only two bridges across that river. They are constantly congested at almost every hour of every day, and at the peak hours the congestion is very severe. I heard of a pile-up on Monday morning which was two miles long. The Minister now proposes to move nearly 50,000 tons of coal to this single depot at St. Mary's. The Derbyshire Coal Merchants' Association immediately protested to me against this decision. The members of that Association are not my supporters, but they feel very strongly about this. They say that there will be an average increase of six miles per round trip for their lorries. That means 1s. 1¼d. per ton additional cost, which coal consumers will have to pay. They will also need more vehicles, because each lorry will do fewer trips per day.
Although this will obviously aggravate the borough's traffic problems, neither the town clerk nor the chief constable were consulted at all. A high civic authority made representations to Dr. Beeching's regional office. He told me that he received what he thought was
a flippant and impertinent reply".
The county borough corporation asked the Minister to receive a deputation; he never answered the town clerk. Eventually his Private Secretary answered a strong protest by me, saying that under the Transport Act, 1962, the Minister had deprived himself of all powers in respect of coal distribution depots. Dr. Beeching now can do exactly what he likes. If that is true, it goes far to justify the harsh things that I have said about the Minister this afternoon.
But can it really be true? If Dr. Beeching does something to which the

coal merchants, the coal consumers, the chief constable, the watch committee, the mayor and all parties in the borough council violently object, cannot the Minister listen to their grievance and try to understand the problems which they are asked to face? Of course he can. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to give me an answer tonight: will the Minister receive that civic deputation? Will he receive the hon. and learned Member for Derby, North (Mr. MacDermot) and myself to discuss this question with him, and the effect that it has on the life of the constituents whom we serve?
In all these minor problems of which I have spoken, and which make up so much of the life of the nation, we should be looking 20 years ahead. We cannot do that if we drift along, "leaving it all to the customers to decide". We should be bearing constantly in mind the three great overriding facts of which I spoke when I began. We should urgently and steadfastly pursue a policy that will keep our towns and cities fit to live in, and which will preserve from motor devastation our lovely countryside. It is by these tests that the Minister's policies should be considered—and condemned.

6.32 p.m.

Mr. Fergus Montgomery: I am most grateful for the opportunity to speak in the debate, and I promise that I shall not detain the Committee for long.
I want to add my congratulations to those which have already been offered to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Scotland (Mr. Alldritt). We all appreciate the enormous strain of making a maiden speech, and I am sure that he feels a great deal happier now that he has got it out of the way. He must feel extremely pleased that his speech went off so successfully.
The hon. Member represents part of the proud and ancient City of Liverpool, which has been rather in the news lately because of a "pop" group called the Beatles. I represent part of the proud and ancient City of Newcastle, and I give him warning that the Liverpool Beatles had better be on their guard because the Newcastle Animals are very hot on their tails.
It was my intention to speak on the need to amend the Public Service Vehicles (Travel Concessions) Act, 1955, but I have


had to scrap my original speech because I have had a Written Answer to my Question from my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport, and I am grateful for the announcement that he has made in that Answer. He has stated that he will get in touch with the local authorities concerned to try to reach agreement, so that their powers to grant travel concessions under the 1955 Act are not eroded.
I always felt strongly about this issue, although I realised that there were difficulties and anomalies. I have always felt that something could be achieved to try to get rid of what I considered to be an injustice, and I am most grateful for the fact that the Government are now acting on what I consider to be a very human problem. I know that this will be greatly appreciated by elderly people in big cities all over the country, and particularly those who live in Newcastle-upon-Tyne.
The problem first arose in 1954, when a Birmingham ratepayer challenged Birmingham's scheme for free travel on the city's buses during off-peak hours.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: He was a Tory.

Mr. Montgomery: He was not. The hon. Member had better get his facts right. He is usually wrong and he is wrong in this case. He should rise if he wishes to interrupt me.
The gentleman was a Mr. Prescott, who stood as an independent candidate against a Conservative candidate in the Birmingham City Conncil's elections. Mr. Prescott is not a member of the Conservative Party. Mr. Prescott raised this matter and the result was that the Court of Chancery ruled that the Birmingham Corporation had neither the power to grant nor to prohibit such a scheme.

The Temporary Chairman (Sir Norman Hulbert): The hon. Member is straying from the Vote, and is talking about something that might require legislation.

Mr. Montgomery: When this matter was raised in the House on Thursday by the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central (Mr. Short), we were told that this point could be raised in the debate, because it affects the

Ministry of Transport. We were told that it would be quite in order to discuss it.

The Temporary Chairman: I understand that, but nothing which involves legislation must be discussed in this debate.

Mr. R. J. Mellish: Surely the hon. Member is entitled to say that A, B and C should be done by the Ministry of Transport if certain things are to be achieved. At the end of the day that may require legislation, but surely this is a debate on what transport is and what it should be, and it must follow that certain legislation might come about. If that is not the case, we shall be very restricted in our arguments.

The Temporary Chairman: Hon. Members may make passing references, but they must not go into details on subjects which involve legislation.

Mr. Webster: If the Leader of the Opposition were to suggest that we should nationalise the road haulage industry, would not that require legislation?

The Temporary Chairman: We had better wait until he raises it.

Mr. Popplewell: Is it not the fact that the Government have been making specious promises to the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Montgomery) for many years? Now that the hon. Member has got something in writing, surely he is in order in pinpointing these specious promises, particularly after 12 years of Tory Government during which nothing has been done and nothing will be done.

The Temporary Chairman: The trouble is that since I have been the occupant of the Chair I have heard no promises, specious or otherwise.

Mr. Montgomery: The position was that the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central brought in a Bill—

Mr. A. Lewis: Which the Tories opposed.

Mr. Montgomery: —which was taken over and became the Public Service Vehicles (Travel Concessions) Act, 1955. This Act gave local authorities the power


to keep their concessionary fares, but they were not allowed to extend them in any way. That was all right as far as it went, but it made no provision for new routes which were introduced to serve new housing estates, or for a change in the type of vehicle. This point was of great significance in the City of Newcastle, because there had recently been a change in that city from trolley buses to diesel buses. As trolley buses have disappeared and diesel buses have replaced them concessionary fares on those buses have not been allowed.

Mr. A. Lewis: Does not the hon. Member intend to deal with the interjection of my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West (Mr. Popplewell)? Is it not a fact that on many occasions my hon. Friend tried to bring in an amending Bill, which the Tory Party consistently opposed, with the active support of the Government and the Minister of Transport?

Mr. Montgomery: The hon. Member had better wait and read the Answer to the Question which I put to the Minister of Transport today. Whatever other hon. Members may have done, I have consistently pressed for alterations to be made in the law, as have many of my hon. Friends.
The situation was that those people who lived on trolley bus routes were allowed the benefit of the concessions while those who lived on routes where diesel buses had taken over were not. As we shall see the complete disappearance of trolley buses in Newcastle in the near future, this would have meant the loss of all the concessions. I believe in the old adage that what you have never had you never miss, but once people have had the benefit of a concession it hurts all the more if it is taken away.

The Temporary Chairman: Order. I have asked the hon. Member not to pursue that point.

Mr. Montgomery: With great respect, I am not proposing legislation at all I am merely trying to point out that today my right hon. Friend has given me an Answer which has a great bearing on the matter. I shall not say anything about legislation which might follow.
Some time ago I put this point to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, and mentioned the anomalies which exist under the provisions of the 1955 Act. I do not know whether it is because of the subsequent discussion that I had with my right hon. Friend that now we have had a change of policy. I do not really care who is responsible. I am delighted that the step has been taken and I consider it to be a step in the right direction.

Mr. Collick: I am in complete sympathy with the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Montgomery). He is referring to an Answer which he has received today from the Minister and which is not in the possession of the House. I am exceedingly interested in this matter. As I am sure the hon. Member knows, hon. Members on this side are wholeheartedly in favour of this concession to old-age pensioners. The Government have stood in the way of this concession being applied universally and I should be obliged if the hon. Member could tell us what reply on that he has received from the Minister.

Mr. Montgomery: I am sorry. I must have been so boring at the beginning of my speech that the hon. Member does not recall that I said clearly that my right hon. Friend is entering into negotiations with the local authorities concerned to try to find a way to allow local authorities to keep the power to give concessionary fares—[HON. MEMBERS: "When?"]. I also explained that I have had to change the content of my speech drastically. Originally, I had intended to attack my right hon. Friend for not doing anything—[HON. MEMBERS: "Go on."] I am not going to attack him now, after what he has done.

Mr. Popplewell: It means nothing.

Mr. Montgomery: It is all very well for the hon. Gentleman to say that it means nothing. The point is that something has been done. The Minister of Transport and the local authorities are trying to reach agreement to get rid of some of the anomalies—

Mr. Popplewell: Mr. Popplewell rose—

Mr. Montgomery: No, I cannot give way again. I have given way sufficiently—

Mr. John Hynd: It is just in time for the General Election.

Mr. Montgomery: The hon. Gentleman says that it is just in time for the election. That is the trouble with hon. Members opposite; they are never satisfied with anything. Had my right hon. Friend wished to help us in that way, he would have given us this answer in time for the municipal elections.
I believe that my right hon. Friend the Minister and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister have now looked closely at the anomalies which arise under the existing legislation. I wish to suggest to my right hon. Friend that there is one item which should be discussed when he meets the local authorities. I hope that he will not think that I am being unnecessarily carping.
To be eligible for any concessions under the Newcastle scheme, a person must produce a retirement pension book. Some elderly people—often it is through no fault of their own—are not entitled to a retirement pension although they are of pensionable age. It is hard for these people to accept that other people in receipt of retirement pensions—often in better circumstances than themselves—should obtain concessionary fares while they have to pay the full fare. The number of such people is not great. I think that they should be considered. I realise that there are difficulties, but I do not think that they are insuperable. I have spoken mainly about the problems of the elderly which I consider to be largely bound up with the prosperity of the country. The more prosperous we are the more we can do for our elderly people.
The problems of the North-East are still with us and we believe that prosperity in the North-East depends a great deal on the provision of good transport facilities. I have always been disappointed that my right hon. Friend never saw the need for a motorway to link the North-East with the bus route to the Midlands. We have, however, gained a certain amount in the last two

years and that is appreciated by the people of the North-East.
Time after time industrialists have complained about what is known as the long haul. Often this is regarded as one of the greatest disadvantages of the North-East. The fact that we have a doubled road programme, and improvements have been made, has helped to get rid of part of the problem. Interesting figures were announced not long ago indicating that the coal carried by train had increased compared with that carried by coastal steamer. The view is that the railways will go on increasing their share of this trade.
I welcome the Rochdale Report. Its recommendations are vital to the export trade of the North-East. The point was made some years ago that it costs twice as much to load a ton of material at a North-East port as at the modern port of Rotterdam. With the implementation of the Rochdale recommendations all the North-East ports will be modernised and synchronised with modern inland transport methods. I particularly welcome the decision regarding the Tees Port. This new deep-water port will prove of tremendous value to the thriving Middlesbrough area as well as to the whole of the North-East.
May I again offer my thanks to my right hon. Friend for the announcement which he has made today. It is said that there is not much gratitude in politics. We are ready to battle for what we want, but when we get it we seldom remember to say "Thank you"'. This time I should like to say "Thank you" to my right hon. Friend. I am certain that most fair-minded people would agree that the decision of the Government is absolutely right.

6.46 p.m.

Mr. Walter Monslow: I do not propose to follow the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Montgomery) either in attack or praise. I wish to deal with the comprehensive survey made by the Minister in which the right hon. Gentleman dealt with a number of reports. There have been the Buchanan Report, the Geddes Report and the Rochdale Report. We have received innumerable Reports during recent years and I think that it would have been better had there been


fewer Reports containing recommendations which were implemented. Seldom have any Government in any sphere of policy failed so completely as have the present Government in respect of transport. There is chaos on the roads. The death and accident rates increase. On the railways we have had more conspicuous losses. Since the 1953 Act, which went all out for road-rail competition, the crisis in the transport industry has been gathering momentum. As the public knows to its cost, now we have crisis and congestion on the road, less frequent rail and bus services, and in the big cities there is nightmare commuting in the rush hours.
The growth in the number of road vehicles has reached alarming proportions. There are 1½ million lorries on our roads. In my opinion we have reached the point of near saturation. This problem of ever-increasing road transport intensifies the financial difficulties of the railways. If rail and road were given even-handed justice, more goods would be conveyed by rail and there would be fewer injuries and accidents on the roads. I recall that in a previous debate my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Snow) said that more people were killed in this country in 12 months than died during the whole period of the French Revolution. That is an appalling situation.
The Report on the reshaping of British Railways proposed that 266 passenger service routes should be withdrawn and a further 55 should be considered for withdrawal. The route mileage represented by those proposals was about 5,000, or about one-third of the total route miles in Britain. About 2,500 stations and halts, it was stated, were to be closed and the saving to be effected by all this was estimated at between £125 million and £250 million.
Dr. Beeching assumes that as a result of the policy he is pursuing, the modernisation plans and so on, the railways' deficit will be completely eliminated by 1970. I have endeavoured to check his figures and I can only describe them as sheer guesswork. I cannot accept many of Dr. Beeching's assumptions. Consider, for example, the deficits before including interest

charges. Consider, too, the position in 1956 compared with 1962. We can arrive at only one conclusion, that interest charges are ever increasing and that the problem of resolving the financial position of the railways will never be solved by the methods adopted by the Government.
What is the true situation? In 1956–57 the railways had a deficit of £57·5 million—that is, before including interest charges. By 1962 the figure was £159 million. Interest on advances made by the Ministry of Transport in 1957 amounted to £2·6 million, but by 1963 the interest payments had risen to £14·8 million. Figures of that magnitude do not augur well for the future of the railways.
It is important to remember that it is admitted that the railways paid their way between 1947 and 1952. I do not know whether that happened by accident or design, but the salient truth is that they paid their way in those years.

Mr. R. Gresham Cooke: Is not the short answer that there was petrol rationing at the time; that people could not use their motor cars and that commercial vehicles were restricted in their activities?

Mr. Monslow: That is not the answer. The hon. Gentleman has an erroneous impression and should ascertain the facts before speaking again.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: Nevertheless, that was the position.

Mr. Monslow: As a result of coordination and integration, which was begun by the Labour Government, the railways paid their way from 1947 to 1952. That shows that the system worked, paid and was an unqualified success. There is no need for Dr. Beeching and his highly paid army of supporters. The fact that the railways paid their way during those years is proof enough that the remedy is at hand.
The financial rot set in for the railway industry when the Tories denationalised road transport in 1953 and with the continued rape—I use that word because nothing less will do—of the railways to the benefit of private road hauliers, enriching the petrol and oil tycoons, in whom the hon. Member


for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke) seems particularly interested, and providing additional profits for land speculators and road builders.

Mr. John Wells: Does the hon. Gentleman have the statistics of the total ton-miles carried by the railways during the years he has mentioned and, if so, will he compare those figures with the figures for last year or the most recent year for which he has statistics?

Mr. Monslow: I have all the statistics with me, but since many other hon. Members wish to speak I do not propose to fall for that one.
Dr. Beeching has made no secret of the fact that he intends to implement his proposals. If they are implemented in full the staff, the public and industry will suffer. The Minister of Transport knows this, but he cares not for the suffering and hardship imposed on thousands of people, the disturbance caused to their way of life and the social consequences to the staff of the railways as a result of stations being closed down. The right hon. Gentleman is more concerned with seeing the railways making a profit on paper. To him that is far more important than the consequences to the industry. I want to make it clear, even to my hon. Friends, that I am not suggesting that no railway lines should be closed, just that in recent years the Minister has stuck to a policy which is bound to cause hardship to all concerned.
I have made some criticisms and I now wish to put forward some positive suggestions to cure the ills of the industry. What needs to be done? Let us consider the whole question of integration and co-ordination. We did not have a fully integrated and co-ordinated transport system even under the 1947 Act and unless we bring C-licences within the ambit of our transport legislation we will not have a complete policy of integration, and we will never resolve the difficulties of the industry unless a fully co-ordinated and integrated system is evolved.
What was the result of the denationalisation of the road haulage industry? The privately operated transport system in 1953–54 took away £65·9 million in profits from the industry. In 1962 the figure rose to £134·7 million. I submit

that had the industry been fully co-ordinated, the financial problems of our railways would not be as acute as they are today.

Mr. Holt: And everything will be stopped.

Mr. Monslow: That may be the hon. Member's view, but I am giving the financial position as it was and as it is. Dr. Beeching can prate that we shall reach solvency by 1970, but I do not accept—and if the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Holt) does, I fundamentally disagree with him—that the railways can survive as a separate entity.
The Government should also look at the possibility of carrying the costs of maintaining the permanent way on the Defence Estimates. I have always regarded the railways as an integral part of our economic life, and this has been amply demonstrated in two world wars. Let us look at the cost of the maintenance of the permanent way in relation to the subsidy we pay on the roads, now in the region of £1,500 million. Permanent way maintenance costs are very illuminating, and if any hon. Member opposite wants to peruse the figures I have he will find that a dispassionate examination will give him a better understanding of the problems of British Railways.
In 1963, the cost of the maintenance of the permanent way was put at £45,440,000; signalling at £37,775,000, and the figure for all forms of track and signalling maintenance at £92,914,000. To have that sum transferred to the Defence Estimates would mean a very great easing of the financial strain on British Railways.
There should also be a more equitable taxation of road vehicles. The present system means a constant drain on the taxpayers and ratepayers. It is true to say that the flood of private transport, both freight and passenger, has submerged public transport, both road and rail, private and State managed, in all industrial countries.
Examination of the fare structure—the incidence of ever-increasing fares—might also prove worth while. It may be thought that nothing can be done about fare increases, but it has been done in Canada, where they had a problem


not dissimilar to our own. On the route from Montreal to Halifax the Canadian National Pacific Railway slashed its fares, with a resultant increase in traffic of 66·2 per cent. There is no reason why we, too, should not make a common sense approach to this problem.
I have suggested that we should have a completely integrated and co-ordinated transport system. I have intimated that we might examine the possibility of putting the cost of the maintenance of the permanent way on the Defence Estimates. I have suggested that we might examine the structure of fares to see whether some means of getting stability or reductions would not mean a greater volume of traffic carried. I have suggested that we might look at the inequity of the present road vehicle taxation system. I want to conclude by paying a tribute to the Minister. Whilst I have never accepted the policies he has adumbated, I do not deny that he has been a man who has at least played a part. He has tried to make a contribution, and has served his office with marked fidelity. I pay that tribute because I think that he has earned it, although I believe his policies to have been completely wrong.

7.5 p.m.

Mr. A. P. Costain: I join the hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Monslow) in complimenting my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport, whom we recognise as a Minister of great vitality. I was interested to note that the hon. Gentleman came out much more boldly than did the Opposition Front Bench over the integration of the transport services. If hon. Members opposite feel that way, it is right that they should honestly say to the electorate that they intend to abolish C licences.
The hon. Member said that railway fares had been reduced in Canada, but he did not mention that in Canada there is competition between the Canadian Pacific and the Canadian National Railways. I have often travelled from Montreal to Ottawa and witnessed the race to do the journey ahead of time. It is by competition that we get reductions in fares—

Mr. Leslie Spriggs (St. Helens): Will the hon. Gentleman tell us what the

integration is to which he is referring, where it is taking place, and when?

Mr. Costain: I was not referring to integration that is taking place but to this extraordinary argument of the Opposition that if we integrate all services we get more efficiency. The policy that I advocate, and the policy of the Conservative Party, is that we get more efficiency by competition.
The hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness spoke of big profits being made by road builders. I at once declare an interest. I am a road builder, and I only wish that the hon. Gentleman was more correct about the profits made out of building roads.
When the hon. Member spoke of closing opportunities for individual firms to use C licences in the most efficient way, he reminded me that in my early youth, as an engineer, when I was working on the Trans-Persian Railway—now the Trans-Iranian Railway—we had to make a service road to carry the materials for building the railway. It was laid down by the then Shah of Persia that if we did not destroy that road no one would use the railway. The order was therefore given that all the bridges on that road had to be destroyed as otherwise the railway would not have a fair chance. The main basis of Opposition arguments is that we must give the railways a fair chance by seeing that no one else can properly compete with them—

Mr. Gresham Cooke: May I point out that it was also the policy of the Emperor of Japan, who owned the railways, to have a very primitive, inferior road system so that there would be no competition with the railways. That was in the last century.

Mr. Costain: Yes, that was last century thinking. But, of course, hon. Members opposite carry on with it—

Mr. Monslow: Will not the hon. Member at least anticipate my thinking that both he and his hon. Friend are in the eighteenth century?

Mr. Costain: I cannot anticipate what the hon. Gentleman is thinking. I listened to his speech with great interest, but I am more confused about this thinking now than before he made it.
We have to look at this problem in terms of how it affects the economy. Everyone must accept that our factories are the heart of our industrial life and the means of transport are their lifeline. We should appreciate that one-tenth of the total cost on average of every product is the amount which it costs to transport that product from the manufacturer to the consumer, whether for export or for use in this country. We are spending on transport alone about £5,000 million a year. It is a figure somewhat beyond my comprehension, and to bring that down to a figure more in the scheme of things I would say that it represents £500,000 an hour, if my arithmetic is correct.
I believe that the Minister's approach of having a number of committees to study the problem carefully is much the best way to get an overall picture. I cannot believe in an integrated transport service which would be rationalised. The hon. Member for Southwark (Mr. Gunter), when he opened the debate for the Opposition, used the word "rational" at least 12 times and I did not start to count until he had got well on his "rational" statement. I believe that we should have a rational approach to transport, but I do not think that a co-ordinated service is a rational approach. We have to look in our transport system to the future. I do not believe that any person in Whitehall can foresee the trend of transport in the future. We should bear in mind, for instance, that today 20 per cent. of our total exports are items which we never exported 10 years ago. Who is to be the soothsayer in Whitehall to say, "We will not put this transport in or that transport in because we do not think it will needed?"
Reference was made by my hon. Friend for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Montgomery) to the Beatles. Who would have said that the advent of the Beatles would have given a new impetus to the sale of gramophone records and corduroy trousers? I am always frightened when the control of any one item is in the hands of somebody in Whitehall.
Reference has been made to the question of railway workshops. Hon. Members opposite have suggested in almost every speech that railway workshops should be allowed to manufacture.

Mr. Archie Manuel: Can the hon. Member advance a case why publicly-owned enterprise should not be able to produce wagons in competition with private enterprise, or is it his intention, through the Minister, to give private enterprise complete protection in order that it can charge as high a price as possible?

Mr. Costain: I thought that the hon. Gentleman would probably fall for that one. I am not talking about private enterprise. I am speaking as a member of the Public Accounts Committee. I would draw the attention of the Committee to page 59 of the 1961–62 Report of the Public Accounts Committee, when the Leader of the Opposition was Chairman of that Committee and when I had the privilege to sit on it. We investigated there the cost, when the Royal Ordnance Factory at Nottingham was given the job, in competition with private enterprise, of converting vehicles into armoured vehicles. In point of fact that little happy experiment cost the taxpayers £1 million.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: Is the hon. Member not aware that the railway workshops at Swindon and Derby are incomparably efficient, and that Dr. Beeching made the request for the building of these vehicles and was supported by the courts?

Mr. Costain: I understood that when the right hon. Gentleman was interrupted by the Minister earlier on the Minister made it quite clear that these workshops could produce any vehicle which is necessary for railways. What we object to is that they should produce articles for sale overseas. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"]

Mr. Webster: Does my hon. Friend recollect the Opposition when they were in Government in 1947 allowing the railway workshops to manufacture for sale?

Mr. Costain: I take my hon. Friend's point. I think that in this debate we should look to the future and only look to the past inasmuch as it gives us a guide for the future. The fact that we have at the present time built 300 miles of motorways and have half as many again under construction is something of which we should be extremely proud.
I think that our increase in the road building programme requires some


alteration in road specifications. I am glad that my right hon. Friend has recently been to America, and I know that he will have seen the road building methods in America. I know from Press reports that he has accepted that the American plans should be brought into this country. He will, of course, realise that to adapt this type of plan to British road conditions complete changes of specifications for our roads will be necessary. We in this country pay much more attention to the thickness of the concrete slab, whereas in countries overseas, particularly America, they pay more attention to the sub grades and use less concrete on surface. By that method I am certain that we could speed up our road building programme.
I believe that we could speed up our road building programme even more by taking a more industrial building approach to our bridges. Possibly we are still living somewhat in the past in our bridge building programme. We should do much to emulate the work which is done on the Continent about standardising bridges. Here again we have to take care that we keep the amenities of the neighbourhood, but I think that there is possibly too much concern about the amenities of the neighbourhood when there is a bridge over a motorway. I cannot see that it makes a tremendous amount of difference.
I congratulate the Minister on the work that he has done for road safety. I had the honour to introduce the Road Safety Act, and the Committee is aware of my interest in this matter.
I was delighted when the Minister made reference to the smaller number of deaths of children. It shows that education has a great bearing on these matters. My own view on road deaths is that a great number are caused by the impatience of drivers, particularly drivers who are following vehicles which are being driven too slowly. I believe that as many accidents are caused by people trying to overtake slow moving vehicles as by fast moving vehicles. The answer to this problem is to arrange for part of the road-widening programme to go ahead of schedule, because if the impatient driver appreciates that he can pass a vehicle in a mile or two he will

not take the same sort of risks as when he knows that he has to wait for some 10 or 15 miles. I commend to my right hon. Friend a suggestion on this matter which I made on an earlier date, namely that when the roads are widened particular preference should be given to widening roads on hills. If the roads on the hills are widened it will be found that this is a point where the lorries slow up and it will be possible, for a matter of perhaps 100 yards, to secure twice as much space for overtaking because of the reduced speed of the lorry.
I believe that hon. Members opposite have been more than unfair to my right hon. Friend in suggesting, hinting and even saying that he has an anti-railways bias. I believe that I am correct in saying that no other Minister of Transport has given the railways bigger funds. He has adopted a realistic approach to the railways problem, and the appointment of Dr. Beeching has put a businesslike look on the whole railway set-up. There must be constituency problems when railways are closed. I have them in my constituency, but I do not wish to press constituency points in a wide-ranging debate. I have written to the Minister and I am hoping for the best.
There is one point, however, in connection with the closure of little-used branch lines which I should like to make. We should emulate what is done on the Continent. These lines could be turned into light tramways carrying diesel or electrically powered vehicles. They could be leased to a local authority or a bus company to be run as tramways. There is a good deal of concern at the moment about unmanned crossings. If we had a system similar to that operating between Ostend and le Zoute or Vienna and the Lakes and these lines were run like ordinary tramways they would be subject to the ordinary rules of the road and where there were dangerous crossings there would be no reason why their vehicles should not halt in the same way as the ordinary omnibus does at an ordinary crossing.
I am somewhat prejudiced on this subject because there is a privately-owned railway in my part of the country, the Hythe-Dymchurch line is in my constituency. It is not only a privately-owned railway, but one which has changed hands in recent weeks. A willing buyer has been found for a competitively


run railway. I do not think that there are any willing buyers for British Railways.
Reference has been made in the debate to the need for transport for the purposes of recreation. In a recent debate one of my right hon. Friends referred to the greater use of leisure. I believe that the roads will be used a great deal more in the future for leisure purposes. The hon. Member for Southwark said that everyone had a right to own a motor car. I agree. As a young boy, when possibly hon. Members opposite were reading the works of Karl Marx, I was reading the works of Henry Ford and I remember his saying in an early book that every man who made a motor car should have the right to own one. How right Henry Ford was and how wrong Marx was.
My right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport spoke today about the large increase in the number of people who go sailing at weekends. He gave the fantastic figures of 13,000 ten years ago and a quarter of a million now. I hope that when my right hon. Friend is considering transport problems, particularly in the next Government, he will give due weight to the fact that increased marine facilities take a great number of people off the roads.
We have every reason to be proud of what we have done in our transport policy. I hope that the nation will realise what will happen if we have the integrated transport service suggested by hon. Members opposite which would stop the ordinary person from being able to deliver goods and to use transport for his own merchandise as and when he wanted. If he does not have that facility he cannot remain efficient.

7.25 p.m.

Mr. Frank McLeavy: It is always a pleasure to follow in a debate the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain), although I have been in disagreement with most of what he has said today. I agree with him that we should look to the future and I hope that what I have to say will be taken from the point of view that I agree entirely that it is the future that matters rather than the somewhat murky past.
British transport presents one of the greatest problems of our time. The question

which is being asked today is how best we can use the various forms of transport to serve more fully the needs of industry and of the travelling public. The Transport Act of 1947 was designed to provide, secure or promote the provision of an efficient and adequate, economical, and properly integrated system of public inland transport and port facilities within Great Britain and to extend and improve that system. It was an Act conceived by men who had a remarkable foresight about the future needs of the country.
Events have proved overwhelmingly how right they were. During the past 10 years the Conservative Government have tried to destroy the purpose underlying the Act. Most transport experts with whom one talks now recognise that we must get back to the principles of the Labour Party Act of 1947 if a solution of our transport problems is to be found.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: Heaven forbid.

Mr. McLeavy: The high toll on our roads of killed and injured, the traffic congestion, the decline in railway and bus traffic, and the ever-increasing cost of road freight and passenger transport call for very serious examination and action. The Tory policy of free-for-all has been undoubtedly profitable to a few, but it has been disastrous to the nation. Road freight services are jamming our roads while the railways are being starved of traffic.
The Minister of Transport has set up a committee to consider the possibilities of producing a small car with the object of relieving the congestion on the roads. At the same time, he has authorised the construction and use of wider, longer and heavier lorries which will inevitably add further to the congestion. What madness this is.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: Mr. Gresham Cooke rose—

Mr. McLeavy: No, I will not give way.
The explanation given by the Ministry is that this is being done because of pressure from Continental traders. In normal circumstances, with adequate road space, this might well be desirable, but it does not make sense today when we have serious problems of congestion on our roads.
The present crisis in our transport system is not something which has suddenly overwhelmed us. It is the consequence of years of deterioration. Two powerful trends have been at work, the rapid spread of motor car ownership, and the continued shift of freight traffic from rail to road. Private car ownership is a great social benefit and will steadily grow year by year. It is the duty of any Government to provide adequate and safer road conditions. In this, the present Government have failed. The trouble with the Minister of Transport is that he talks too much and does too little.
It is estimated that road haulage traffic will rise by an average of 4 to 6 per cent. per annum up to 1970. As a road man myself, I can speak about the difficulties of the railways without being accused of looking at only one side of the picture. In the national interest, it is vital that we put back on the railways a greater volume of freight traffic. The railways are essential to the industrial and social life of the nation, and they are also an important factor in national defence. Because of their tremendous importance to our country's well-being and security, it is stupid to allow the railways to remain in their present financial position.
The railways, through their influence on transport costs, can be a factor in keeping down the costs of production. Industry and the Railways Board should get together in a real partnership to find the best method of using our railway capacity and keeping the cost of transport down to a reasonable level.
The Beeching plan for railway closures, so far as it relates to major services, should be held over pending a national survey of transport requirements. The whole Beeching Plan should be given much more careful consideration in the broader framework of the industrial and social requirements of the people. Until we have a clearer picture of the type of transport suitable and necessary for the development of our industrial areas and the life of the country in general, it would be foolish to take drastic steps in railway closures.
Now, the roads. Whatever we do in the planning of British transport, there

will still be an urgent need for more road construction. The British Road Federation is very critical of the Government's failure to provide the necessary roads. It has said:
For too long have Governments sat on the fence and allowed conditions in Britain's urban areas to deteriorate
and it went on to say:
In August, 1960, 46 per cent. of all the trunk roads in Britain were overloaded beyond their design capacity. And the situation must be a good deal worse now. The Federation estimates that capital expenditure on trunk roads and motorways, however, will rise by only 26 per cent. in England and Wales in the five years till 1969, from £93 million to £117 million. On the physical side: Where are all the motorways? The Government says more than 500 miles will be open by 1968. The Government promises 1,000 miles by the early 1970s. And this year, 1964, the Government will bring 7½miles into use.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith): If the hon. Gentleman looks at the financial year as distinct from the calendar year, he will see that it is very much more than 7½ miles. I must point that out because, otherwise, it is not a fair picture.

Mr. McLeavy: I am quoting from a document issued by the British Road Federation, and I assume that its figures ought to be nearer the mark than what the Parliamentary Secretary has said. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] The Federation's criticisms are very strong and come from a quarter which is usually not unfavourable to the Conservative Party. They represent a view which demands the careful consideration of Parliament.
The growing number of vehicles on our roads demands more and better roads. These roads should be built without the delay which is inevitable in our present method of planning and land acquisition. Parliament should set up a national road planning and construction board to deal with new roads of major importance. The board should have power to acquire land while the question of the purchase price is under consideration, with reasonable safeguards for the vendor. In addition, it should be the planning authority for all major roads.
Road construction should be financed at least partly by loans or the issue


of bonds, and construction should proceed as fast as the available land and labour force will permit. An important factor in road construction is the retention of the workers who specialise in this work. A break in employment could result in difficulty in the recruitment of labour, so it is wiser to arrange the work so that the workers move from one job to another. We must try to avoid the break between contracts so as to prevent the dispersal of the workers and ensure that road construction is not held up.
During the Committee stage of the Finance Bill, I had something to say about our bus services in both rural and urban areas. I have been rather despondent for many years because of the lack of action by the Minister of Transport to ensure that services in the urban and rural areas matched the requirements of the community. For many years the service has been deteriorating, even in the capital city, London, and particularly on the outskirts of the City centre. The service has almost disappeared in the countryside. The public is seriously inconvenienced because of the lack of adequate services, Time and again hon. Members opposite representing rural constituencies have made out cases for immediate attention being given to the rural bus problem.
The Minister appointed what was commonly called the Jack Committee to go into this question, although all the facts which he required were, more or less, available to his Department. The Jack Committee made a majority and a minority Report. In spite of the views expressed, as far as I know, nothing tangible has been done to meet this growing problem in the rural areas I have said time and again in this Chamber that the bus problem is not simply a rural or City of London problem; it is a national problem of deterioration arising from various factors.
The factors briefly are these. The mode of life of the people has changed. Television has kept them in their houses instead of their going to cinemas and theatres. As a consequence of this, and through the development of the private car, the volume of traffic on public service vehicles has been considerably reduced.
However, the bus service operators still have a responsibility to the communities, whether they be in urban or rural areas. They are charged by the traffic commissioners to run an appropriate time-table of services. They are supposed to provide this service whether the number of passengers that they carry is large or few. In spite of this, they are taxed to the hilt. Taxation today is making their task extremely difficult.
It is no good thinking that we can deal with one section of transport in isolation. The transport problem is extremely complicated and vital. Somehow, and some day, we must get together some people capable of examining the trend of our transport, whether it be by rail, road, sea or air, and of giving Parliament some guidance on how we should deal with it.
In looking at our transport problems, we must also think of the cost factor, not only to the person who pays the fare but to the nation, of providing the roads and railways so that the community can be provided with a service. Industry will shortly come to the view that, because of the keen competition in the export market, it can no longer afford an extravagant and costly private transport system. This is why I feel that it is essential that industry and the railway boards should get together to see how, by common agreement, they can get more traffic on the railways and reduce costs from a manufacturing point of view.
This is the last debate on transport that we shall have in this Parliament. I think that it will be a worthwhile debate. I have been very interested in some of the speeches by hon. Members on both sides. I am sure that, like me, most hon. Members feel that something must be done to find a permanent solution to this problem. I believe that it can be found if we are prepared to make sacrifices on both sides. I believe that it should be found in the interests of the prosperity of the nation.

7.46 p.m.

Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: I agree with some of the remarks of the hon. Member for Bradford, East (Mr. McLeavy). In particular, I think that there is a case for considering the fuel


tax as it affects the bus services, particularly in the rural areas. I will cover some of the other remarks of the hon. Member in the course of my general observations.
One of the basic differences between the two sides of the Committee is that right hon. and hon. Members opposite are inveterate deductive thinkers. They draw inferences from general principles and apply them to particular instances and despise the Tory habit of being inductive thinkers inferring a general law from particular instances. Hon. Members opposite start with their slogan and then look round for facts which lit it and which happen to suit their particular theory. We tend to start by dealing with each particular instance on its merits as it appears to us from our experience and allow the sum total of our experience to build up a theory which we accept.
In no respect is this more clear than in transport, because, anchored as they are to Clause Four in their constitution, hon. Members opposite, naturally enough perhaps, look round for an excuse for nationalisation at every opportunity. They find such an excuse in the slogans of 30 years ago which were invented not by Socialists but by public relation officers in the Square Deal campaign of the railways. There were slogans like "creaming off the profits", "unfair competition", "integration", and so on, the validity of which I always doubted. I was in the railway service at the time and I always thought that the campaign made this mistake. Instead of seeking to remove the restrictions on the railways, it sought to put restrictions on the roads by these rather specious slogans, which if they ever had any relevance have none today.
I was astounded when the hon. Member for Southwark (Mr. Gunter) made a quotation which indicated that he seemed to think that there was too much transport. He was answered by facts mentioned by one of his own right hon. Friends, the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mr. P. Noel-Baker), who gave many statistics indicating that in these days of full employment, with a rising population and growing productivity and growing exports, there was a shortage of road space, so that it seems to me that the theory which was so popular in the 1930s that we had too

much transport and would have to ration it between one form of transport and another is not valid now.
I shall not attempt, as did the hon. Member for Barrow in Furness (Mr. Monslow), to produce a mass of statistics. It is almost impossible to follow them in a debate without having the figures before one. I should, however, like to submit two or three general propositions with which I do not think hon. Members opposite will disagree. First, it is, I believe, accepted that during the last 20 years there has been a general and steady decline in goods traffic on the railways, which has, in fact, increased during the last 10 years. The decrease in traffic on the railways has not been matched by a corresponding increase in the traffic carried by road hauliers, particularly by A and B licence holders.
The statistics show that there are two reasons for that. One is that a lot of the traffic which has been lost to the railways has not gone to the roads but has ceased to exist. A good example is afforded by the domestic coal traffic, which formerly was an important part of the goods traffic. It was the bread and butter traffic which paid for the maintenance of many small stations and depots, particularly in the West and South-West.
That traffic has largely disappeared, not because it has gone to the roads, but because it is no longer there. Many houses, even in rural areas and certainly in country towns, no longer depend on coal for space heating or cooking and the demand for domestic coal is nothing like what it used to be. Electricity, gas and oil for central heating, or even oil stoves for cooking, have to a large extent replaced the coal traffic which formed such an important part of railway haulage in many country districts.
Another example is from the City of Birmingham. Those who remember pre-war days will know that Birmingham used to be called the city of 1,000 trades and was derisively referred to by some people as the city of the dolls' eyes trades, referring to the many small industries and trades which then existed in the city, none of which had its own transport facilities and all of which depended upon the railways for cartage and delivery of their raw materials and


finished products. Now Birmingham is connected with motor manufacture, either vehicles or components, and, naturally, the raw materials and finished products travel by road. This traffic of the past, has, therefore, ceased. This is one reason why there has been a marked decline in the haulage of goods by railway.
Another instance to which several hon. Members have referred, but to which only one hon. Member opposite has cared to suggest a solution, is the large increase in the number of C licences. It is not the A and B licence vehicles which have increased to any marked degree.
What is the reason for this very large increase in C licences? This was dealt with in a report issued in 1959 by the Traders' Road Transport Association, the organisation representing C licence holders, which sent a questionnaire to its members asking why they used a C licence. The answers were significant. Cheapness of travel came quite low down on the list of reasons. The prime reasons were the certainty of timing of delivery, avoidance of breakages, the fact that excessive use of packing material was obviated, the collection of cash by the drivers and even advertising on the sides of the vehicles.
None of those reasons would be met merely by introducing a tax upon C licence vehicles or restricting their limit of user if the reason for using a C licence vehicle is not so much its cheapness as a matter of convenience. Merely to tax C licence vehicles to prevent people using them, to limit their radius of action or to require an applicant to furnish proof of need before obtaining his licence, would not meet the needs of traders but would merely obstruct their methods of transport and, therefore, obstruct trade.
It is no solution, therefore, to apply to these people the slogan about creaming off the traffic, because they provide for themselves a service which happens to suit their needs, and the only way in which their competition can be met is to provide for the railways to provide a service that will meet their needs themselves. That is the sort of thing Dr. Beeching was proposing with the liner trains. I was taken aback by the hon. Member for Southwark when he quoted a statement by Mr. D. O. Good, the

former Chairman of the Road Haulage Association, about liner trains. I have no doubt that the quotation was accurate, but the hon. Member surely knows that Mr. Good has on many occasions indicated his willingness to co-operate with the railways. I believe that he has had conversations not only with the railways but with British Road Services on this matter and has indicated that his organisation would welcome the liner trains. That is exactly what one would expect.
It is no advantage to a haulier, especially a long-distance haulier, to have his vehicle away for the night, to have his vehicle parked, perhaps, in a parking place over which he has no control and where it is more likely to be stolen. It might be a great advantage to him to earn his money on the short haul by taking his customers' goods in a container to the railway station and putting it on the truck of a liner train and arranging for it to be met at the other end. This implies, however, that the railway unions would permit this to be done; otherwise, of course, the traffic would not go by the liner train.
If this is prevented, of course, Mr. D. O. Good and his friends would provide an alternative service of their own. I cannot understand the objections of the railway unions. They seem to me to be deliberately driving away business which would help to keep them in employment. There is no likelihood of drivers of the cartage and delivery vehicles being thrown out of work. The tendency is towards a shortage of labour in many grades on the railways.
To object to a certain number of private hauliers arriving at a railway station to deliver their goods is extraordinary. But for a Conservative Act, the railway unions could not have done this, because while the railways were common carriers they had to accept everybody's goods, and they would not have been in a position to refuse somebody who arrived at a depot and wanted to deliver his goods for carriage by railway. It is an extraordinary position.
The statistics show that although there has been a general decrease in passenger services over a period, for the last year or two they have remained almost static at around 1,000 million a year, mostly commuters or long-distance travellers. The big increase in passenger traffic has


not been by bus or by coach—in tact, after increasing, the bus and coach traffic has decreased slightly in the last few years—but by the private motor car. Therefore, merely to integrate the bus services with the railway passenger services would not answer the problem. Unless we are prepared to put some limitation on the private car we shall not answer that sort of situation in the least.
I was rather expecting that someone among hon. Members opposite would have mentioned "Signposts for the Sixties". They are very fond of quoting it, and they could quote it very often, I suppose, in the belief that we have not read it. The few sentences in that document which deal with transport seem to me rather tendentious and vague nonsense. They are to be found at the bottom of page 8 and the top of page 9. It says:
Investment in publicly-owned railways has been wholly inadequate.
That seems to me the most extraordinary statement in view of the fact that £580 million has been put in by this present Government. That document goes on:
But public enterprise is not allowed to build the roads on which to drive the cars.
I do not understand that statement at all. It goes on to misquote the figure—perhaps the document was written some time ago—by saying that only 258 miles of modern motor roads have been constructed. The figures, as we heard today, are 292 miles of motorways in use, 150 miles under construction, 600 miles will be constructed by 1968 and 1,000 miles by the mid nineteen-seventies. Those figures give a rather different picture.
That Labour document goes on to various matters connected with the Road Research Laboratory and casualties and it says:
Yet still the Government takes no effective action.
I should have thought that spending £147 million a year on new road construction, as we are at present, answers that. It is the biggest figure ever achieved in this country at any period of our history.

Mr. Manuel: With a General Election coming on.

Mr. Wilson: That record can hardly be described as one of doing nothing.

However, I only mention that in passing because I thought somebody probably would say something about that document.
Several hon. Members have mentioned the question of the survey, and that has been dealt with also by speakers on my own side. There have been comments about experience in Sweden, about how long it takes to get a general survey and about particular surveys which have already been undertaken in this country. It seems to me that this is a most important example of what I think is the difference between deductive and inductive thinking and building up theory which emerges from an examination of a whole series of different instances. Hon. Members opposite want endless delay till they get the whole picture, leading on from general principles. I think that that is the quite wrong way to do it.
Our transport policy, I think, is effective. Many of us here have seen a great number of transport services in Europe and some of us will be going to see some more next week. [An HON. MEMBER: "Who pays?"] I think there is some misunderstanding about this. Members on both sides of the Committee go. This is paid for by an organisation which is interested in the roads. There is no pressure put on us to go. Nor do we have propaganda thrown at us about the roads, only the facts.
I think that, comparing our own road programmes with those on the Continent, we can say that if we did make a late start we are making very good progress.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Compared with Germany?

Mr. Wilson: We have been to Germany many times. I would advise the hon. Member to look at the autobahn south of Frankfurt which has a double two-lane highway, with no high shoulder. There are traffic jams because if vehicles break down there is no hard shoulder for them to drive on. This happens quite frequently on the autobahnen. It certainly will not happen on our roads.
I think a great deal of progress has been made, and I think the Minister is to be congratulated on the policy


which has been carried out, and I wish it every success for the future.

8.6 p.m.

Mr. Leslie Spriggs (St. Helens): I hope that the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. G. Wilson) will forgive me if I do not follow him in all that he has said, but I will reply to his view about the Labour Party's policy on nationalisation. If he wants an answer, I will certainly give it to him. This does not come from any public relations officer. I remember the policy of the Square Deal campaign for the railways, to which the hon. Member referred. I remember it because I was one of those who then were working on the railways, as I did for a good number of years, and I had a bellyfull of private enterprise on the railways.
We were suffering then from the worst conditions of any, in any industry in the country, and that was under private enterprise. Private enterprise did not even provide a decent dining room for railwaymen to eat in. I have seen men dining in a room during inclement weather with water dripping on to the very table from which they were eating.
I have seen the serious lack of drying facilities, so that a railwayman would come in from the marshalling yards, on an eight-hour shift, and have to eat his meal in his wet clothes, which were still wet when he went out again—but the bosses expected the men to maintain normal health standards. That was the kind of health and safety standard which private enterprise was prepared to pay for. I know something about that.
The Labour Party had to take into public ownership a number of basic industries because they had failed under private enterprise. They even failed to pay their shareholders, and they had to reduce services.

Mr. G. Wilson: Mr. G. Wilson rose—

Mr. Spriggs: Let me point out to the hon. Gentleman that the privately-owned railways were in need of capital investment, and because that investment did not bring in huge dividends it could not attract the necessary capital. The country as a whole was having to suffer for it. We in the Labour Party saw the great social need for the State to step in to provide the necessary capital and manpower. As a railwayman for many years

I can speak of the health and safety standards which were brought in under nationalisation, and I give credit where credit is due, and I would vote for public ownership any time where these industries are concerned.
We had an intervention from the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Webster), who attacked the National Union of Railwaymen for its attitude, which he called intransigent. I am afraid that he did not know what he was talking about. Had he really understood what the railwaymen were opposing he would have kept his mouth shut. I thought his attack was prejudiced, unjust and cowardly. If he would only read the railwaymen's journal, the Railway Review, he would be informed. The hon. Gentleman is chairman of the Tories' transport committee. As such he took the place of the hon. Member for Truro. Since he took over that post in that important committee, he should at least keep himself well informed.

Mr. Webster: One of the reasons why one is not informed of these negotiations is that the National Union of Railway-men admits the Press only at the most innocuous part of the discussions and tells them nothing of substance. If it would come out with a definite statement of its policy on this most important matter the whole nation would be better informed.

Mr. Spriggs: I am sure the hon. Member is wrong. The N.U.R. is one of our most forthcoming trade unions. I can do no other than give credit to it for its work and patience. Long months of patience during the negotiations with the management side have, I think, proved that sometimes we have too much patience.
I now turn to the Minister's reply to me about Judge Ungoed-Thomas's ruling in the High Court about the right of the Railways Board to tender for railway tank wagons for use on British Railways. The right hon. Gentleman's reply gives a clear indication that political prejudice will continue as long as we have a Tory Government. He rejected my question and said "No" out of hand. This can be nothing more nor less than political bias or prejudice. Here we have a High Court ruling that the Railways Board has a right to tender for railway tank wagons to be used on British Railways, but when I asked the Minister of Transport what


the Government's policy was in view of that ruling, he says that there is no change in policy. We all know what the Government's policy is in relation to the public sector when it wishes to tender.
I believe that the railway workshops—I accept what has been said about the Labour Government; I believe that we should have done it, and I believe that we shall do it as soon as we get the opportunity—have a wonderful capacity which can be applied to the British economy when required. I think of the workshops in Derby, Swindon, St. Helens, Gorton and Horwich. These could play an important part. Yet the Minister, or the Board on his behalf, has decided on the closure of these workshops and others. These workshops have played an important rôle not only in peacetime but during the national emergency. They did magnificent work during the war, building tanks and guns, and they helped to keep our transport system going.
Only those inside the industry can tell the House what actually happened and the difficulties that the men worked under. Even when there were air-raids, the traffic was kept flowing. I well remember that when the Second Front was being prepared German aircraft followed the trains down the main line to the South Coast, doing their damndest to stop them reaching the ports to unload the materials for the final attack on Nazism. The railwaymen knew what they were doing and were loyal to their country. As a railwayman, I expect reciprocation by hon. Members when the railwaymen and the trade unions ask for a fair deal. We do not talk of square deals. We are asking hon. and right hon. Members to play the game and be fair towards the railways, the railwaymen and the railway users.
I now want to give the House some idea of what my constituents think of the proposed withdrawal of passenger services between Liverpool, Lime Street, St. Helens Shaw Street Station and Wigan North-West stations. I cannot do better than give an account from one or two of the many letters that I have received from people who oppose the closure. I will first read one from a young lady employed as a nurse in a district hospital. She writes:
I understand that you are to help us to try to stop the closure of the Wigan-Liverpool railway service. You will, I know, be conversant

with the full main facts, but may I tell which British Railways regard as an 'adequate you of my own experience of the bus service alternative service'? I feel that they are determined to carry out the Beeching Plan without regard to the public who use the trains, and that they will brush aside all objections by saying that there is a good bus service. However, they are judging the adequacy of the service by the frequency of buses, not by the speed with which all passengers are carried home. I feel our only hope lies in convincing them that the alternative service is too poor at present to cope.
I work at Broadgreen Hospital, and for the first month there I travelled in by bus. The nearest stop for me is Queen's Drive, and I have waited there for a bus from 5.15 p.m. until as late as 6.30 p.m. and even up to 7.30 p.m. The buses were always full coming out of the city. After working on my feet all day, it was exhausting to wait hour after hour, unprotected in all weathers, hoping for a bus which would have room left just for one more passenger. With the extra influx of passengers from the trains, this situation will worsen impossibly. There will be workers from Hunters and Lucas Ltd. also waiting at the Queen's Drive stop. The alternative is to get a bus into Liverpool (only a half hourly service) and queue for a bus in the city. This takes time and costs me 9d. per day more in fares. Conversely in the mornings, the nearer to Liverpool the harder it is to get a bus, and many are left standing at each stop even now.
In addition there are extra passengers before Christmas (shoppers), in the New Year (sales), during children's school holidays, at Easter, and every Thursday (early-closing day in St. Helen's). From this experience I know how exhausting and frustrating it is to travel by bus on this route, and I most sincerely hope that British Railways can be convinced of this. The trains never leave anyone behind, are quicker, warmer, more comfortable, and there are waiting rooms at each station. The trains, too, run much more reliably in bad weather.
During last year in the snow and frost I was five minutes late for work on only two mornings in three months. During this time I believe the buses ran consistently late and on three mornings did not run at all. Furthermore, they were extremely cold to travel in. I know you will do all you can in this matter, but it is only the voices of people of influence like you that have any chance of being heard. May I thank you for your concern and help in this matter.
Yours sincerely,
Miss Patricia Lancashire.
That is one example of the views of the ordinary traveller.
Another letter is from a man who is badly crippled but tries to be independent by earning his own living. He relies upon the railways because only the railway service provides the necessary space for his wife, himself in his


invalid chair, and his wares. This gentleman writes:
I read your article in Monday's Echo and in response to your request for support against the closure of Shaw Street Station I would like to add mine.
I am 80 per cent. disabled as a result of an accident and use the trains as my only means of getting about. I have used the Wigan-Liverpool line for the past 9 years since I was discharged from hospital as incurable. I travel in the guard's van from Prescot to Broad Green from whence I call on customers in outlying districts of Liverpool, my wife pushing me some ten miles a day in the invalid chair. I am barred from having a self-propelled chair owing to the nature of my disability…
Should it become law for this line to close it will mean great hardship to me as my small business could not be carried on …
He asks me to give this my earnest interest and to do all I can to get the Minister to retain the passenger service between Liverpool Lime Street and Wigan North West. He adds:
I am also a frequent visitor to St. Helens and Wigan, and also from Wigan to Southport on days other than business…
These are two letters among many. I am obliged to the Committee for its patience, for I know how boring it can be if many letters are read. But I think it necessary that, on both sides, we should know what ordinary people are thinking. What has struck me very forcibly is that when we are debating in this Chamber we are sometimes caught up completely in economics and political issues. On this occasion it will be to the good if we can take our minds off these issues for a few minutes and think of the people. If it were not for people we would not be here, and I believe that the only worthwhile thing for us in the House is the people when considering matters of this kind. We should do nothing which will harm our people, but do everything in their interests.
I want to give some information about this line. A few weeks ago I decided to have a survey of every road between St. Helens and Wigan Central Bus Station, for my constituents and I take these proposals very seriously. I greatly doubted the feasibility of carrying out the Railways Board's plan for this stretch of line. I know that some of my hon. Friends are also concerned and will not be slow in putting their case if given the opportunity.
I had the help of about a dozen young men and women, none of whom has ever been employed on the railways and, as far as I know, never will be. An outstanding factor was that, whilst we could measure the roads and take observations in the centre of the urban districts and the County Borough of Wigan, we lacked any information about the bus trailer which the Minister referred to on 11th February last. No one seemed to be able to advise us about the kind of trailer to be pulled by buses in the event of the railway passenger service being closed.
I have telephoned the Ministry asking for details. The Minister mentioned a prototype on 11th February, but I have not had the pleasure of seeing the type of vehicle he referred to. From our observations, I can say that an average of three prams in each direction would have to be carried, and if the trains were taken off the young women with their babies who frequently go home to their parents and relatives would no longer be able to travel in the district, unless the road passenger undertaking was prepared to provide the kind of trailer the right hon. Gentleman mentioned.
When my young friends and I had finished our survey, I sent a report to the Transport Users' Consultative Committee. Apparently its chairman was very interested in it, and I was able to tell him that the roads in many places were exceptionally narrow. Our survey also took us over many road, rail and canal bridges, most of them very old and narrow.
I want now to pay tribute to those young people of St. Helens who turned out to help save their railway passenger services. It took two full weekends to do the survey, and on one of them it rained heavily nearly all the time. Yet they came out, stuck to the job and completed it. All hon. Members will be gratified that St. Helens has such wonderful people living there.
We questioned transport workers about the Railways Board's proposals. We went into a transport cafe in the centre of Wigan and questioned the customers. We did not ask them where they lived but what routes they used. We questioned them about the safety of having trailers behind the huge buses which will have to be used on these routes if the railway line is closed. We


gave an estimate of a trailer or about 8 ft. long and 6 ft. wide which could be used for carrying prams and luggage in safety.
We asked whether the Minister or his officers had ever consulted their union about the use of trailers behind the buses. The reply was, "We know nothing about it. We have never been consulted and we would not accept responsibility for something we could not keep our eyes on." These narrow roads are very busy. Much industrial traffic uses them, even at weekends. On Sunday, many motorists use them travelling between East Lancashire and Southport and other places.
We tried to look at this matter from the economic point of view. We tried to see through the eyes of the Government. I asked the right hon. Gentleman what it would cost the Railways Board to subsidise privately-run bus companies on services replacing railway passenger services.
These proposed closures will cost the Railways Board millions of £s. In 1960, it paid £45,000 to the bus companies for running uneconomic bus services. In 1961, that figure was £47,000; in 1962, £63,000 and in 1963, £92,000. If the Railways Board is allowed to go ahead with the closing of more services, more alternative passenger road transport services will have to be provided, and many of them will be uneconomic. We believe that the people are entitled to an adequate passenger service on the railways or on the roads. If any hon. or right hon. Gentleman would like to refer to what the Minister said about bus trailers, he should consult HANSARD of 11th February, 1964, columns 52 and 53.
I now want to deal with some of the domestic problems of railwaymen. On page 41 of the Report there is a short reference to pensions. I am surprised that the Board dares to mention pensions, especially for many of the wages grades on the railways. A driver with 41 years' experience on the main line in the district where I was stationed as a railwayman handed me a document which was sent to him from his regional office to tell him what he would draw on retirement. In all, he had 51 years' service on the railways, and he was to retire on the princely sum, the private rail wages pensions

scheme, of 11s. 2d. a week. I shall be paying 6s. 4d. a week to the pension scheme for many years, and when I retire I shall draw the princely sum of 30s. a week, unless something is deducted by the tax inspector.
I shudder when I consider these amounts in relation to the golden handshakes about which we read until quite recently for loss of office and so on. When right hon. Members opposite criticise the N.U.R., I wonder whether they appreciate what work the union has to do and the time it takes to negotiate and what railwaymen get at the end of it. Year after year the railway trade unions come forward with wage claims and claims for better conditions of service. Year after year they are told by the Chairman of the Board that while the unions have made out a first-class case—as one chairman told them—there is nothing in the kitty. There never will be anything in the kitty if we allow the Government to dismantle the transport service which we were developing until we went out of office. The railways were paying their way until 1952, but after the disintegration of the transport services, when the Government sold out the profitable side of the industry, namely, road haulage, that was no longer the case.
We now have to consider the so-called reshaping of the railways, conceived by the Tory Government and conducted by the management headed by Dr. Beeching. The management is slowly but surely realising that its intentions have not always been firmly grounded. Trying to do a deal with private road hauliers was a dead duck from the beginning. When the Railways Board accepts the facts of life, perhaps we shall see a new effort to fight for the traffic which the railways should have.
Too often in the past the Government and the management have ignored the voice of the unions. I recommend the Government and the management to give the unions more responsibility and to make consultation really live. The present so-called consultations are a contradiction of the word. Too often the management presents the unions with a fait accompli, whether at local committee level, or at the top. This is no consultation but, telling the unions what is to be done.
I am sure that after the General Election Labour will give the nation an integrated transport system which a Labour Government must give it. If we are to save the transport system and to pull it out of the present chaos and to do everything to help to reduce the loss of life on the roads, this is what we will be required to do.
The Minister told us that 7,000 people were killed on the roads last year, and yet he refuses to do anything to provide incentives to encourage more and more motorists to leave their cars at home and to use buses and trains. The nation is waiting for the time when my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) sits on that side of the Committee and when right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite will see that what Labour says it will do it means it will do.

8.39 p.m.

Mr. David Webster: I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for St. Helens (Mr. Spriggs), because he followed me by one day into the House. We were elected on the same day, and I listen to his speeches with interest. I remember listening with particular interest to his maiden speech. Opposition speakers always make their speeches before we do, which gives us a chance to say to the Member concerned, "What an excellent speech. Do you want a pair at any time?". That is very convenient, but I do not think that I shall have much success in achieving that this evening.
The hon. Gentleman modestly said that he had bored the Committee with boring letters. I have done worse for him. I have sent him boring letters from my constituents and he has answered them most ably and helpfully. He is an authority on many of the matters which were raised.
We both want the best system for the railways, but I think that we differ on how to get it. The hon. Gentleman was formerly an official of the N.U.R., and I followed carefully what he said. I shall attack him later, but I thoroughly agreed with every word he said about the alleged pension scheme. The way in which it has been handled, and the way in which the pension fund was invested in the stock of the company concerned, was almost nothing short of criminal.

I have criticised it in the past in the House. I have no hesitation in agreeing with what the hon. Gentleman said about it today, but that is the end of my agreement with him.
The hon. Gentleman talked about the time when the right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) was going to lead the troops to victory, and about how he was going to have a properly integrated transport system. I have listened to almost every word of the debate, and I have wondered more and more just what is meant by an integrated transport system. What does it conceal? The Leader of the Opposition is on record as saying that he regards the battle of the future of the British transport system as political, and that it should take place in the House and ultimately at the polling booth, but we have not heard a word from the right hon. Gentleman today on this subject. He has not graced the Chamber with his presence.

Mr. A. Lewis: Where are the hon. Gentleman's supporters?

Mr. Webster: The right hon. Member for Huyton is the only Socialist who speaks with authority from the benches opposite on the subject of an integrated transport system. We have heard so much about this, but so little about exactly what it means.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Minister on the way in which he has handled the activities of the American Federal Maritime Commission in its efforts to interfere with the contractual obligations of shipping companies. I was tremendously impressed to learn that my right hon. Friend managed to get international co-operation on a considerable scale, and I compare my right hon. Friend's achievements with the endeavours of the right hon. Member for Huyton to get international co-operation, which he seeks only with countries which are ideologically suitable for him. I think that it is very fortunate that it is my right hon. Friend who has been conducting these negotiations.
This vague and innocuous generalisation about a policy for an integrated transport system is like a Portuguese man-o-war. It is rather innocuous on the surface, but underneath there are


some vicious stings. What do we mean by creaming off the profits of an integrated transport system? What does it mean when the Opposition, who considers themselves to be the party of the 'sixties and 'seventies, talk about creaming off the profits? It means taking all the profits from the one profitable section to subsidise the ailing and static limb of a transport system which is losing a tremendous amount of money.

Mr. Gunter: The accepted word now is "rationalisation". The Minister accepts it, the Railways Board accepts it, and, indeed, we all accept it. Will the hon. Gentleman define what he considers to be the difference between integration and rationalisation?

Mr. Webster: Perhaps I might be allowed to continue to use the word "integration". They are creaming off the profits to subsidise the mass of that part of the transport system which is not profitable. They are keeping it in action when it is not serving the people. In fact, they are straining and draining the profits of the dynamic part to maintain in existence that part which is not being used. I am referring to one-third of our railway system which carries 1 per cent. of the freight and less than 1 per cent. of the passengers. That is what the Opposition mean. They want to cream off the profits to maintain this inert mass of a railway system which is not being used.
That is not a dynamic policy. It is static and inert, and it is certainly not leading to a Britain which can compete with other countries. The Government's policy has been successful. By the 1962 Acts we have divided the British Transport Commission into functional parts, each of which is financially more successful today. We are not simply bound by a balance sheet, as the decision to build the Victoria Line amply proves, and we are reducing the deficit of the railways by £22 million. During this time we have increased railwaymen's pay quite sizeably.

Mr. Collick: Mr. Collick rose—

Mr. Webster: The hon. Member does not usually give way himself.

Mr. Collick: I always give way. If the hon. Member had been in the

House longer he would know that. He said that the Minister's policy had been successful, but when Dr. Beeching took over responsibility for British Railways deficits were running at rather less than £60 million; during the period in which Dr. Beeching has been in control they have increased to about £160 million. Is that the hon. Member's measure of success?

Mr. Webster: I am coming to that point a little later. I must be allowed to make my speech in my own way, without the assistance of hon. Members opposite. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] I will give ample answer.
We also took from the railways the restriction of the common carrier liability. We took away from it the necessity to publish all its fares, and its terms and conditions for carrying goods. We give it greater freedom than it had ever had before.
This was done by a Minister whom hon. Members opposite attack as being anti-railway. It is right that he should be paid tribute for what he has done to free the railways so that they can reduce their deficit without having to have many closures. Every time they can, the Opposition resist any attempt to scrap that part of the system which is no longer of service to the community. They resist the voluntary fusing of the speed of the railway system with the manœuvrability of both the free and the nationalised road services. They resist all this, as we have seen in our discussions on the negotiants regarding the liner plan.
They insist upon an overall plan, despite the fact that in Sweden—a country only one-seventh the size of ours—considered adopting an overall plan, but took seven years to discuss it, during which time the number of vehicles on the road increased by 2½ times. In the end, the plan had to be scrapped. We have been much more wise in discussing each part of the system in its functional relationship with each aspect of the vast railway and road problem that exists today.
The right hon. Member for Batter-sea, North (Mr. Jay) said that the Swedes and the Canadians look for the moment like becoming the commonsense pragmatists of Socialism and the British the psalm-singing dogmatists. We know


the right hon. Gentleman's views on the subject of C licences. The essential differences between the two sides of the Committee is that my hon. Friends and I stand for planning by voluntary cooperation whereas the Opposition stand for planning by compulsion. They believe that the gentleman in Whitehall knows what is right, and they wish to impose this decision upon an unwilling electorate.
The Opposition attack the Government for being unkind to the railways. The hon. Member for Bradford, East (Mr. McLeavy) attacked us on the ground that we did not invest enough in the railway system. I would point out that we invested £115 million this year, which is well over double the last figure of investment when the Opposition were in office. The Beeching Plan is a reshaping plan. I do not think that Dr. Beeching would claim it as his own personal achievement. Whenever there is a success to announce he is very quick to say that it is the result of team work and co-operation.

Mr. Collick: What achievement?

Mr. Webster: The reduction of the deficit by £22 million is, I think, an advantage to us all as taxpayers. From what hon. Members opposite seek to do during debates on the Budget and the Finance Bill it is obvious that they, too, have the interests of the taxpayer at heart.
It is interesting to note the violent opposition that is always shown to the reshaping plan—we are experiencing it again tonight—the resistance to it, and the determination to have an overall survey. We continually hear that hon. Members on this side of the Committee are supported by subscriptions from some unknown bodies. Hon. Members should be aware of what Mr. Harry Nicholas, Treasurer of the Labour Party and Assistant General Secretary of the Transport and General Workers' Union, said:
We in the unions have a special responsibility. Our union gave birth to the Labour Party. We largely sustain it financially and greatly influence its political decisions.

Mr. Spriggs: On a point of order. Is what the hon. Member now saying relevant to the subject under discussion?

The Deputy-Chairman (Sir Robert Grimston): I think that no more than a

passing reference should be made to subscriptions to either political party.

Mr. Webster: I have made my passing reference, Sir Robert.
The hon. Member for Southwark (Mr. Gunter) has rightly said that the unions must face the facts of life as they are in the late 1960s. He took an excellent stand on that and was publicly rebuked by Mr. John Boyd and by Mr. McGarvey, who said:
If the Labour Party wants our support, then Mr. Wilson must control those under him, particularly those in the Shadow Cabinet.
This is relevant to the problem which we are facing today and I am sure that the whole Committee will take note of it. The representatives here of the National Union of Mineworkers seem to be concerned at the subject under discussion.

Mr. Spriggs: Mr. Spriggs rose—

Mr. Webster: The Opposition run a continuing vendetta against the private enterprise road haulier and the right of the businessman to choose his own method of transport. They blame the denationalisation of the road haulage system for the down-turn in our finances. Yet during the last four years, while the traffic has increased by 35 per cent. on the roads, the number of vehicles has increased by only 5 per cent.
When we talk about cost I think that we should remember that during the time of nationalisation, between 1947 and 1952, the cost per haul per ton on 105 miles rose from 23s. to 31s. 1d., a rise of 35 per cent. During the next 11 years it was reduced to 29s. 3d., a reduction of 5 per cent. That shows that under a private competition system costs are reduced most drastically. For a haul of 190 miles the cost rose from 30s. 3d. per ton to 43s. 9d. during the five years between 1947 and 1952. There has been a reduction to 40s. 3d. during what had been called 12 wasted years.
What has the Labour Party in mind for this highly efficient and competitive industry? The hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) is very concerned about road safety. He should be aware that the drivers of heavy vehicles have the best road safety record of any class


of road user. That is on the official record of this House. The industry is under the threat of nationalisation. It has lived with it for years. The people in the industry—the drivers, owners and others who rely on it for their livelihood—want to know the method of nationalisation to be imposed on them.
The right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) said not long ago:
The fewer detailed commitments we have when we enter office the greater will our opportunities be.
The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition is reported as saying in Washington, 16 months ago, that the Labour Party would
rebuild this integrated system, not so much on the basis of buying off every lorry, every truck, every little back-street garage that's got four or five broken down lorries together with the good will and pay enormous sums for them as we did last time—but on the basis of taking the lid off the already nationalised British Road Services.

Mr. Spriggs: Taking the shackles off.

Mr. Webster: This is not a question of shackles. [Interruption.] If hon. Members opposite would not keep interrupting me I could complete my remarks and sit down. I am talking about the prospects of unemployment in the industry—

Mr. Manuel: Rubbish.

Mr. Webster: —because the longdistance drivers and others are worried about their future. They are worried about what will happen if a Labour Government take office. In these conditions it is only right that those who are concerned with the industry should be free to contribute to the party which they consider will resist this monstrous form of theft.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Deputy-Chairman: Order. That has nothing to do with this Vote.

Mr. Webster: I am talking about a form of compulsory acquisition without adequate terms of compensation. Hon. Members opposite may care to recall what the Attorney-General, in 1949, then Sir Hartley Shawcross—with whose policy hon. Members opposite may not agree, but who, they cannot deny, was a Law Officer who is far above reproach

—said. He stated that one was entitled, by law, to defend one's interests whether one was a worker in or owner of the industry concerned.

Mr. Gunter: As long as the shareholders know.

Mr. Webster: The people in the industry fear a Labour Government taking things over and putting on distance limits, as they did before, taking licensing restrictions off the B.R.S. and bringing about a gradual withering away of the private road haulage system. That is what they are planning. [Interruption.] They would take away from the individual, from the businessman, the right to choose the method of transportation of his goods. Everyone knows that the last time it happened people went in for C licences so that they could transport their goods in their own vehicles and so maintain their efficiency. They sent their goods by road, in their own vehicles.

Mr. Spriggs: What about the number of deaths on the roads, 7,000 a year?

Mr. Webster: We hear veiled threats about the C licensee and about the restrictions that will be placed on him—and the hon. Member for Southwark has on many occasions said things of this kind. We are given to understand that the right hon. Member for Batter-sea, North would restrict their activities—[Interruption.] I wish that hon. Members opposite would remain silent for a moment. Instead of sanity and competition, as we have had during the term of office of the present Minister of Transport—

Mr. Collick: Really.

Mr. Webster: —we would have compulsion, tacked on to a system that would not be competitive—nationalisation not only by the backdoor, but down the drainpipe—followed by the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) going on about his wealth tax and creaming off the riches of the nation.

Mr. Spriggs: On a point of order. The hon. Gentleman is now talking about a wealth tax. Surely that has nothing to do with the subject under discussion?

The Deputy-Chairman: I was about to stop the hon. Gentleman. A wealth tax has nothing to do with the subject under debate.

Mr. Webster: I am pointing out that all these things are creamed from profits. Only a profitable industry in a profitable economy can bring any of these things about. The Opposition's proposals are like a Portuguese or Spanish man o'war. They would lead to no profits and would give no wealth to the nation. There would only be prophets of gloom and despair.

Mr. Collick: On a point of order, Sir Robert. May I have your guidance on whether there is any way in which this debate can be extended? Many hon. Members who have been sitting here throughout the debate have been hoping to catch your eye, have never left the Chamber, and have not had an opportunity to speak. In those circumstances, would it be possible to extend the debate for an hour?

The Deputy-Chairman: Although I may sympathise with the hon. Gentleman, there is no possibility of such an extension.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: Whatever one may think of the speech of the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Webster), one thing we can say with certainty—and on my part with gratitude—and that is that he has raised the temperature of the debate. That was a worth-while thing to do and, if I can, I propose to keep the temperature up.
This has been a very interesting debate, in which a number of important speeches have been made. In particular, we have been fortunate in hearing a very remarkable maiden speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Scotland (Mr. Alldritt). Everyone who heard it will agree that it was first-class. We hope to hear him frequently in our debates.
We have heard differing views from different parts of the House about the Minister of Transport and the stewardship of his Department during the last five years. Naturally, the views expressed from the Government side have been laudatory and those from this side have been critical, but the views expressed by the Minister of Transport himself were

perfectly clear. He thinks that he is a marvellous Minister of Transport, and he is also convinced that his term of office is rapidly coming to an end. I agree with him entirely on his latter proposition, but not on the first one.
I suggest that the views which the right hon. Gentleman holds of himself—which he probably holds because he has repeated so frequently on public platforms praises of his own administration that he has now come to believe them himself—are a little distorted. If one considers his record, one finds that he has certainly been a very active Minister of Transport. He has been rushing about all over the place, here and abroad, and he speaks a great deal in the House and on television. He is an exceedingly active Minister, but activity is not enough—after all, every ant is active. The question is what has been the outcome of all his activity, and whether, apart from words, his record has not been as I suggest, largely one of procrastination and indecision—too little, or too late, or both.
I take, first, as an example, the Minister's belated decision to allow the construction of the new Victoria-Walthamstow Underground line to proceed. This decision was taken only after years of pressure by the London Transport Executive. The House gave authority for the undertaking in 1955, and the line should have been in operation by now. Those who travel in that part of London, and the industries located there, will have to pay dearly in delays and frustration for the right hon. Gentleman's refusal to act earlier.
As far as I know, there is no indication that he is considering the other equally necessary Underground extensions in London. There is urgent need for one in south-east London, for one going to the north-west of London and for an Underground serving some of the central stations and forming a new cross-river link. All of these are badly needed. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary will tell us whether any study or consideration is being given now to such extensions of the Underground system because, as he knows—or ought to know—much as they are needed now, they will be much more needed in a few years' time. I should have thought it essential to prepare plans now, so as to use the construction equipment and the


trained labour force employed on the Walthamstow-Victoria line when the present work is completed.
There have been similar Ministerial delays in the provision of rural transport. Ever since the Jack Committee reported a few years ago on the urgent need for action and suggested various remedies, the Minister has done nothing about it at all, except set up a number of further inquiries, the latest of which has only recently been launched—and heaven knows when it will report. Meanwhile those people who live in areas where public road transport is scarce and who need such transport continue to suffer.
Then there has been his refusal to take any really effective action to reduce the number of accidents on the roads caused through drunken driving. I agree that in other safety matters he has taken useful action, but I do not think that even he would claim that the minor amendment of the law in the 1963 Traffic Act could make any significant impact upon this problem. On this issue, he has used, not once but twice, his favourite device of setting up a committee of inquiry as a substitute for action.
In 1959, the country was shocked when 215 people were killed over the Christmas holidays. What did the Minister do? He said:
It is obvious that the first thing to do is to make a scientific assessment why the deaths were caused. I have asked the Road Research Laboratory to investigate".
Everyone except the Minister knew what the cause was; it was perfectly obvious—it was drink. The Road Research Laboratory considered the matter, made investigations and reported accordingly.
Last year, the country was again shocked by the appalling number of Christmas road deaths. What did the Minister do then? He again told the House that nothing could be done until there had been a scientific investigation into the cause of all those deaths. He again asked the Road Research Laboratory to make an investigation, which it did and published its report last month, and, of course, came to exactly the same conclusion as it did four years ago. Still the Minister, as far as we know, is doing nothing about it.
In one of the right hon. Gentleman's recent farewell speeches—and the Minister has been making as many as any prima donna on the eve of her retirement—he said, in retrospective mood, that he had funked no problem. In fact, he has funked a large number of problems, but none more blatantly than this one. His actions have been confined to expressing indignation, condemning the drunken motorist, and telling the House and the country over television that something ought to be done about it. But he has consistently refused to enact the one obvious deterrent, that is to make it an offence for a motorist to drive when he has more than a certain amount of alcohol in his blood. He has refused to do this in spite of overwhelming evidence from abroad that such a law has a marked effect in reducing accidents caused by excessive drinking.
Let us consider the Government's action in road building. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary when he replies will not, as some of his back benchers have done sometimes, say, "The Labour Government did nothing between 1945 and 1951." That is perfectly true, but the right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that during that period when our resources were overstrained in transforming our economy from a wartime one into a peacetime one and repairing some of the ravages of war, we could not do anything more than we did. In fact, at that time Conservative Members and the Conservative Opposition Front Bench were constantly criticising us for trying to do too much too quickly. We did everything that was possible. We brought before Parliament and passed the law under which motorways have since been built, and we prepared an outline plan for those roads.
What is the record of the Conservative Government? It was six years after they took office before there was any appreciable increase in road building. There was no excuse for that delay, and ever since then they have been building new roads on a wholly inadequate scale and comparatively much below that of all other European countries.
The Minister tries to convey the impression that all is well by telling us every now and again, as he did today, of an increase in the road building programme during the coming years, but


what he does not say is that it is being increased from a miserably low base figure and that the new sum proposed will still be wholly insufficient to meet the nation's needs. Those needs are to provide road facilities which will enable essential traffic to move freely in 10 years' time when the number of cars on the roads will have been doubled.
We know that recently the Minister visited the United States. He announced on his return, with his well-known modesty, that he discovered there a number of remarkable things. Most of the things he discovered had been long known to everyone else, and I think that one of these days the right hon. Gentleman will watch a kettle boil and discover steam. Among the things he told us he had discovered was that large and expensive road-making machinery was enabling roads to be built quicker and cheaper, and he said that the Government might buy such machinery and loan it to contractors here.
This may be a good idea, but why did we have to wait for this to be considered until the present late stage in our road construction programme? If his Department is not aware of the new techniques for road building and increasing traffic flow, many of them exceedingly ingenious and being constantly developed in America and in European countries, it ought to be. If it is not, the fault and the responsibility is the Minister's. I should like to know why this machinery, which we all know is first-class, was not brought here and loaned to contractors very much earlier.
The Minister's programme for urban motorways, where as we all agree the needs are greatest, envisages the expenditure, as he has told us, of £140 million a year by 1970. The right hon. Gentleman appears to be satisfied that this is adequate. That satisfaction is not shared by anyone with a knowledge of the problem, and certainly not by Professor Buchanan, our greatest authority in this matter whose knowledge and foresight has rightly been extolled by the Minister in the highest terms on many occasions.
This is what Professor Buchanan wrote in "Traffic Engineering and Control" last May:
I find it difficult to sympathise with the Minister of Transport when he announces that investment in urban motor roads is likely to

advance to £140 million a year by 1970, as if it were a very large sum indeed. I can see that expenditure needs to be stepped up gradually, but do not let us pretend that £140 million a year is anywhere near the investment required.
I hope that the Government will no longer foster that pretence.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southwark (Mr. Gunter) said a great deal about the railways and I do not want to repeat anything that he said. But there are one or two questions which I should like to ask. One of these was mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mr. P. Noel-Baker) and it is an important one. There is a grave danger, and this is a fear shared by coal distributors all over the country, that under the Beeching proposals to concentrate the number of coal depôts, coal will have to be carried far greater distances by road, with the result that the cost to the consumer will rise steeply. Indeed, there is fear in some areas that if the existing coal depôts are closed, in bad weather no delivery of coal will be made at all.
It would be a most regrettable consequence of the attempt to save money on the railways if all coal consumers, industrial and domestic, outside the large towns had to pay far more for their coal. It would mean that those consumers were subsidising the railways, and the net social effect would be bad. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary—I have given him notice of the question—will give us an undertaking that no such thing will happen and that, if there is any danger of it happening, the Minister will interfere and give the Railways Board the direction which he is entitled to give and tell the Board not to proceed further with their coal plans.
I was interested to read in the newspapers that £17 million is to be spent in modernising the railway workshops, those which are left over after the concentration process is completed. But is it not a frightful waste of resources to refuse to permit the existing manufacturing facilities, most of which are very good, up to date and of a high standard, and the skilled workshop staffs, to produce equipment for which there is a demand, wherever that demand may come from? I am referring, of course, as did several of my hon. Friends today, to the Minister's refusal to accede to


Dr. Beeching's request that the railway workshops be permitted to tender for the manufacture of oil wagons—I understand that the contracts would be worth millions of pounds—required by the oil companies to run on British Railways lines.
The Minister's arguments in favour of his decision are quite ludicrous. The first, that it would interfere with the Railways Board's prime task of running the railways, is plainly nonsense. If that were right, Dr. Beeching would not have made the request. His second argument, that workshop costings are not sound enough to ensure that prices would cover real costs, including depreciation and a reasonable profit margin, is just not true. It may have been so in the past, but it is certainly not so now.
One can only conclude that the Minister's decision stems from his prejudice against publicly-owned industry. His embargo on permitting these workshops to compete on fair terms with private industry will, of course, be reversed by a Labour Government.
Fares are shortly to be raised by the Railways Board for commuters in the London area, and the London area alone. Season tickets are to go up by 7½ per cent. I should like some enlightenment on the principle underlying this decision. A Railways Board spokesman said that the increase would bring in about £1 million, equal to the sum paid out in wage increases to railwaymen in the London area last December. But those wage increases were not confined to London. Why, then, is it proposed to confine the increase in fares to the London commuter? Is it because he is a captive traveller in the sense that he has to use the train, whereas in most other parts of the country he can use alternative transport, including the private car?
If that is the reason—and I can think of no other—the Board's policy is, I suggest, grossly unfair. It discriminates against London commuters, very many of whom live a good way out of London and already have to pay more than those living elsewhere in travelling to and from work. In my view, they have good reason to resent being picked out

in this way to make a special contribution to meet the railway deficit. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary can give a better excuse for this discrimination than the one we have been given so far by the Railways Board.
In the earlier part of the debate, there was considerable reference to Dr. Beeching's submission to the Geddes Committee that heavy vehicles do not pay their proper share of the cost of new roads and that they should be more heavily taxed, with the object of putting them in a state of fair competition with the railways. There probably is a case for increased Excise Duty for heavy vehicles, but I admit that I was not myself much impressed by Dr. Beeching's arithmetic and arguments, and I have not found any economist or expert—I have consulted many—who has been.
It seems to me extraordinary that Dr. Beeching should have presented this case at all in public, particularly in the way that he did. Taxation on road vehicles, in spite of what the Minister said today, has nothing whatever to do with the Geddes Committee, which, by its terms of reference, is confined to considering the present licensing system. Nor has it anything to do with the cost of transport by road compared with the cost of transport by rail.
I find it rather invidious that one element of our transport system—the railways—should, with great publicity, try to make a case for penalising another element, which, incidentally, includes a considerable section under public ownership. The body which should be doing this research is plainly the Ministry of Transport, acting impartially and being concerned only with the national interest. The Minister told us today that such calculations are being made in his Department. Did Dr. Beeching know that they were being made? Did he consult the Ministry officials about the work that they had done before he issued his own conclusions?
As Dr. Beeching's conclusions have been made public, may we have an undertaking that those made by the Ministry will be made public, too, when they are completed? If so, we may get nearer to the truth when we see the figures produced by the Ministry and


the Railways Board and also by British Road Services, which, finding their carrying trade threatened by the possibility of new taxes being put upon it, will no doubt want to put in their own estimates and figures.
Certainly the problems of the transport industry—the relationship of road to rail, the extent to which the railways should be a service to the public and industry and not just a commercial enterprise—are formidable. But the trouble with the Government is that, by philosophy and temperament, their approach to these problems is all wrong. They believe in competition—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—and private enterprise, and they dislike public ownership. That is why they sold most of the British Road Services vehicles to haulage companies. They would have sold the lot—that was their declared intention—if the pressure of industry expressed through the National Chamber of Trade had not prevented it.
That is why the Government even contemplated at one time a measure of competition between the various railway regions—a folly which Dr. Beeching immediately stopped. That is why they disintegrated the publicly-owned transport system in the 1962 Act and left the various elements which comprised it in deliberate competition linked together only by the spurious National Transport Advisory Council. We said at the time that the Bill was before us that this body was only a facade, a pretence that there was to be co-ordination at top level. I understand that it has done nothing of any importance whatsoever. In view of its present lack of powers, it is a complete waste of time.
It is the very opposite of disintegration and the free play of competition that is needed. It is integration, planning and control—all anathema to the Conservative mind—which alone can bring order and prosperity to transport. That is implicit in all the authoritative surveys which have been presented to us recently—the Hall Report, the Rochdale Report, the Buchanan Report and even the Beeching Report. Gradually the Minister and his colleagues are giving grudging acceptance to these ideas. In their speeches they accept them in

principle, but to carry them out is too great an affront to their ingrown prejudices. The Minister hails the Buchanan Report and has taken some steps of approval, such as circulating local planning authorities and setting up an interdepartmental board.
The Minister, by constantly telling us that he discovered Professor Buchanan—a favourite theme of many speeches to which I have listened—tries to attract to himself much of the credit for the Report and to bask in some of the public acclaim with which it has been received. When, however, it comes to doing those things which the Report states are essential if its conclusions are to be implemented—setting up bodies such as regional development councils and enacting planning controls on a comprehensive scale—the Minister baulks at the prospect and says "No".
Over the whole field of transport, the Minister and his colleagues are inhibited by the outmoded philosophy to which they still cling from taking coherent and effective action along the lines called for by modern conditions. The Times of 18th June put it this way:
In transport, the need for greater public investment, planning and control is indisputable. It is for the electors to decide if Labour's natural zeal for such measures is preferable to Conservative caution.
Fortunately, it will not be long before the electors make their decision, and there can be little doubt what it will be.

9.27 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith): I should like to begin by congratulating the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. Alldritt) on his maiden speech. He spoke with assurance and made his points reasonably and I am certain that we all hope that our debates will be enlivened by frequent contributions from him in the future.
As to the points raised by the hon. Member, the £3½ million represents the grant allocation from 1965 to 1968 and it has been increased to £6¼ million for 1968–69 and covers schemes which have been put forward mostly for the new Mersey Tunnel. The £118 million which the hon. Member mentioned


probably refers to Liverpool's requirements for all classified road schemes in the long term, but so far we have not received any proposals about them. As to the Southport—Liverpool line, the question of which the hon. Member raised, if he has any points of a non-hardship nature I hope that he will communicate them to my right hon. Friend the Minister.
I was rather surprised when I heard that the Opposition had chosen to discuss transport on one of their rather precious Supply Days. At the end of the debate, I am even more surprised at that choice, because they have clearly failed to sustain the attack which they tried to mount against my right hon. Friend and his record. What hon. Members opposite have done is to show themselves utterly out of touch with opinion in the country, and in their assessment of my right hon. Friend's record they have shown, as usual, that they are living in the past.
It is true that at one time my right hon. Friend's drive and determination to get things done was misunderstood and that he was, let us face it, for a time unpopular. That, however, was in the past. My right hon. Friend is no longer unpopular. The good results of his policy are clear for everyone to see, except, apparently for hon. Members opposite.
In the Gallup poll which was published in the Daily Telegraph last winter, to the question
Do you think that Mr. Marples is doing a good or bad job as Minister of Transport?
came the answer, from 55 per cent., that he was doing a very good job indeed. What is clear to the public is, unfortunately, apparently hidden from the transport pundits on the benches opposite.
My right hon. Friend received the other day a letter which said:
If Wilson, Brown and company do get in they will solve the traffic problem on the roads in twelve months. No one will have any money to run or buy a motor car.
Having, however, decided to discuss transport it is very surprising to find that some of the matters raised most vehemently and with the greatest passion in the debate have, strictly speaking, very little to do with transport at all. They reflect the doctrinaire views of the party opposite. Indeed, a considerable proportion of the debate has been concerned

less with the solution of practical problems than it has with ideological dialectics.
An example of this is the manufacturing powers of the railways, to which many hon. Members have referred. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Southwark (Mr. Gunter) led off on this, and his right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss) finished on the same note. It is always extraordinary to me how right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite come back again and again to the same theme. It is not as if we had not made our views perfectly clear in the debates on the Transport Bill of 1962, and more recently in the short debate we had before Easter.
Hon. Gentlemen say that we on this side of the Committee believe in competition, but will not allow freedom to the railways to compete. Manufacturing, however, is not competition in the transport world, which is what we are anxious to encourage so far as the transport undertaking is concerned. This amounts to an extension of nationalisation into a manufacturing, non-transport field.
The argument normally used to justify the nationalisation of an industry is that private industry has fallen down on the job. That is what right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite always say. In this case, however, private industry has not fallen down on the job. It is quite capable of doing the job. Indeed, private industry might well retort to this charge that if anything it is the railways which have fallen down on the job, and that they could not exist for one moment without the vast subsidies which the taxpayers are paying towards them, and towards those the private manufacturer has to contribute his share. Surely it cannot be regarded as normal competition that manufacturers should be forced through taxation to help keep in existence an industrial organisation which is then free to launch into competing in non-transport manufacturing activities.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Vauxhall referred to excess capacity, but when, as we all know, there is reduced demand for wagons due to modernisation it seems to me to be very odd, and, indeed, not quite fair, that an alteration like this—because it is an alteration—should be proposed in the arrangements which have existed


for so long, simply to insulate railway workshops from the processes of change. This is a case in which, if the facts require adjustments, and if they have to be made by private industry, they must also be made by State industry as well.

Mr. F. Noel-Baker: Mr. F. Noel-Baker rose—

Mr. Galbraith: I cannot give way to the hon. Gentleman. I have already crossed swords with him on a previous occasion.

Mr. Noel-Baker: On this point—

The Chairman: Order. Mr. Galbraith.

Mr. Galbraith: As we see it, this is primarily a transport undertaking seeking to enter a manufacturing undertaking. Our policy and purpose is simply to ensure that nothing stops the Board from concentrating wholeheartedly on making its section of the transport industry the most efficient system of any in the world, and the more that it can concentrate on that, undisturbed by ancillary activities which are well catered for elsewhere, the more likely is it to succeed in the vital job which only it can do.
One of the main strands running through this debate, to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, has been: how are we to live with the motor car? There is the safety aspect of this, on which I propose to say a few words later. There is also the amenity aspect, and here my right hon. Friend is preparing regulations controlling noise along the lines recommended by the Wilson Committee, and he is also seeking to find a reliable technique for measuring excessive smoke. But the main aspect is congestion, to which a great many hon. Members have referred—the problem of simply getting about when there are so many other people in cars trying to get about at the same time.
So far as inter-urban roads are concerned, there is no doubt, whatever hon. Gentleman opposite may say, that we are in the process of solving the problem. On any computation, we are engaged on a massive programme of building a first-class network of motorways on a scale which, I am sorry to say again, makes the efforts of hon. Gentlemen opposite when they were in power seem very puny indeed.
What their position is now I do not know. The right hon. Member for Vauxhall said tonight what he said in the Scotsman not long ago, that the programme is "completely inadequate". Yet his hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), when referring to schools, hospitals and roads, said that such programmes could not be exceeded. Who is right? Is it the right hon. Gentleman or is it his hon. Friend? This is the trouble with the Leaders opposite; they will not say clearly and categorically what their policy is.
Inside the towns the problem is, of course, much more difficult. It says very much for the perception of my right hon. Friend that the moment he took office he realised this, and that one of his very first actions was to appoint the Buchanan Committee. He has been praised for this speedy action, but now there is a tendency to criticise him—the right hon. Gentleman gave voice to this, unfairly I thought—for not doing what is described as "getting Buchanan off the ground" quickly enough. I could understand this impatience from ordinary people, but not from hon. Members opposite who are afraid to do anything on railways until they have examined the minutiae of every section of other forms of transport, including even pipelines. I should have expected greater understanding of all that is involved in implementing Buchanan.
As my right hon. Friend made quite clear in his opening speech, we have not shelved Buchanan, nor are we slowing down on it. What we are doing is making sure through transport land use surveys, which are the very heart of the matter, that local authorities have available to them the data necessary to make the right decisions. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Sir R. Nugent) said, this is absolutely vital to a right decision.
In cases of particular difficulty—balancing, for example, the value of two alternative routes—we shall use the new costing techniques for assessing total benefit which, with the aid of the universities, we are now developing. All this will obviously take some time, but Buchanan is looking ahead for 40 years, and for the immediate future the solution lies in new and improved forms of traffic


management. The good results of my right hon. Friend's energy in this regard are visible for everybody to see.
The hon. Member for Bradford, East (Mr. McLeavy) referred to buses and the need to make use of them and for improved facilities. Traffic management is particularly important to public transport, which we believe will have an increasingly important part to play in the large conurbations. The recently announced decisions of the London Transport Board with regard to innovations for greater efficiency, such as the use of standee buses, will also help.
Hon. Members opposite offer subsidies as a solution for transport difficulties, and, indeed, for every other kind of industrial difficulty. We do not believe that there is any general need for this and that a speedier and more reliable service is what is really wanted. A subsidy will not provide that, but traffic engineering will.
In any case, if the Government, on behalf of the community, allocates indiscriminate general subsidies to particular forms of transport there will inevitably be that much less for other objects of expenditure. Transport after all is not a social service. It is a consumer good.
I will enlighten the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) about that. I am quoting from the Socialist Commentary of 1963.

Mr. Manuel: Will the hon. Gentleman recognise that certain basic lines serving scattered rural populations in the Highlands have escaped the axe because the Minister does not agree with the analysis the hon. Gentleman is trying to make?

Mr. Galbraith: Not at all. We agree in this respect with Socialist Commentary. Equally—and this meets the point the hon. Gentleman puts—we have no doctrinaire objection to subsidies. The railways are already paying subsidies to unremunerative bus services which have replaced even more unremunerative railway services. But, as a general solution to the problem of public transport, subsidies are not a workable alternative to higher efficiency and better traffic management, and it is on these lines that we intend to proceed.
My hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain) referred to

safety. The record over the past 12 years is not too bad. The right hon. Member for Vauxhall would, I am sure, agree with that. But he has changed his opinion about my right hon. Friend. Only on 24th January last, in referring to my right hon. Friend, he said:
I think that he has done a great deal. He has taken many actions which have been wise, but unpopular, and I repeat my view that, on the whole, his record in this respect"—
that of safety—
is a very good one."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th January, 1964; Vol. 687, c. 1498.]
I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for that tribute to my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Strauss: It is true, and it is what I think. But there is, nevertheless, this important section in which the right hon. Gentleman has ducked taking action where such action would have been most valuable.

Mr. Galbraith: I do not think that I can agree. My right hon. Friend gave more figures today showing the improvement that has taken place. For the past few months we have been reviewing the whole apparatus of road safety to see what scope there is for improvement. One thing is quite clear. There is no simple solution.
Road accidents happen because of a whole host of different factors, and we must analyse these systematically and develop measures to eliminate them or reduce their effect. It is a question of making a large number of small advances on a broad front. Because all these accident statistics and investigations are fundamental to solving the road safety problem, we set up last year, with a view to improving services, two experimental area road safety units in Warwickshire and Hampshire. They have been trying out new ways of getting information about accidents. We are also reexamining the present machinery for collecting and analysing accident statistics to see whether we can improve on the present arrangements. I hope that the experiments by these two units may help in this regard.
In an interjection, the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire referred to heavy lorries. I would like to have said something about this, but I have not time. I refer him, therefore, to the recent


Adjournment debate on this subject, when it was shown that my right hon. Friend is, as one would expect, extremely active in this direction. Next week, in Edinburgh, the hon. Member will see one of these blitzes taking place.

Mr. Manuel: Blitzes on what?

Mr. Galbraith: On lorries, to make certain that they are properly maintained.
Safety is not just a matter of vehicles on the roads. It is, first and foremost, a social problem involving people's attitude to the car. As the Buchanan Report put it, we have to develop a sixth sense of motorised responsibility. But this is not a problem that the Government can solve on their own. It is impossible to impose a solution on the community and on the community's way of living. It must be acceptable to the people and it must deserve their respect and their co-operation. This is what is so difficult about the drink problem.
My right hon. Friend recognises this problem and because of this he and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland have decided to set up a small high-level road safety advisory council to advise them on this—

Mr. Manuel: Another one.

Mr. Galbraith: Yes, another one, and another one which will produce results.
This council will replace the existing much larger departmental road safety committee which is chaired by my noble Friend Lord Chesham, and I should like to take this opportunity of thanking its members on his behalf, and on behalf of my right hon. Friend, for the excellent work which they have done since the war.
The new council will have an independent outside chairman and will be given every encouragement to take the initiative and to explore any solution, however novel, which it thinks might be profitable. It will work through a series of functional sub-committees on particular aspects of the problem with a wider membership including people expert in their particular fields. The council may come up with recommendations which are critical of the Ministry or of the Government, but this is something

which we do not mind, because the important thing is to get an entirely new look at the problem and to try to develop an approach which is both practicable and acceptable to road users. My right hon. Friend hopes to be able to make a further announcement about the appointment of the council and its chairman before the Summer Recess.
The right hon. Member for Vauxhall asked for an assurance that the railways' concentration of coal depôts would not result in higher prices because of longer and more expensive road deliveries, and his right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mr. P. Noel-Baker) asked much the same sort of question. In so far as they are the responsibility of any Minister, coal prices are the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Power. There is no control over the retail prices charged by coal merchants. The future level of costs in different areas will depend upon the types of depôts agreed locally by British Railways, the National Coal Board and the coal merchants, the rebates on freight which the railways are able to allow in each case, the possibility of road haulage and other local circumstances.
It is obviously in the interests of the Board, the railways and the trade to avoid increases in coal distribution costs. The committee which they have set up to plan the movement of coal in the light of Dr. Beeching's proposals aims at avoiding, so far as possible, any increase in the average costs of distribution. What is certain is that there are very big absolute economies to be obtained from coal concentration, and that the benefits of these economies cannot be gained, and so cannot be passed on to the consumer, if concentration schemes are not allowed to go ahead. I hope that that satisfies both right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: As the Parliamentary Secretary is dealing with coal distribution depôts, will he answer my question? Will the Minister receive the civic deputation from Derby and the two Members of Parliament for that borough?

Mr. Galbraith: My right hon. Friend is always delighted to receive the right hon. Gentleman, but in this case, when the matter refers to freight, for which my right hon. Friend is not responsible, and


when this is a nation-wide change, my right hon. Friend must decline the pleasure.

Mr. George Brown: Mr. George Brown (Belper) rose—

Mr. Galbraith: The right hon. Gentleman has not been here all day.

Mr. Brown: Mr. Brown rose—

Mr. Galbraith: The right hon. Gentleman should sit down.

Mr. Brown: Mr. Brown rose—

The Chairman: Order. The Committee knows quite well that a right hon. Gentleman and an hon. Gentleman cannot address the Committee at the same time.

Mr. Galbraith: I have not given way because the right hon. Gentleman has not shown sufficient interest to attend the debate until just now.
That brings me to the vexed question of railway closures, in which I think we are all interested. In fact, I know that we are all interested in them, because this Session we have had no less than eight Adjournment debates on this subject at which I have tried to explain the Government's policy. Usually there have been only a couple of Members present, and with so few people present to hear what I had to say I thought that there was no chance of ever bringing to a conclusion these dreary midnight matinees in which I have unfortunately had to be the reluctant star. But this evening, with the House so relatively full, I now have an opportunity of being able to show that when we agree to a closure we do not act in any harsh Draconian fashion, but with a due sense of responsibility for all the issues involved.
I think that the House knows what the procedure is. First, the railways on their own initiative—and I must stress that it has nothing to do with the Minister or the Government—decide in the light of their own commercial judgment which lines they wish to close. Dr. Beeching made it clear in his Reshaping Report that the railways put forward a service for closure only when they have studied every way of making it pay, and when they have concluded that there is no hope of the service ever

becoming remunerative. I think that that answers the point made by the right hon. Member for Derby, South.
Dr. Beeching stated at page 56 of his Report, and this is very important:
It is not thought that any firm proposals put forward in this Report would be altered by the introduction of new factors for the purpose of judging overall social benefit.
When the railways make a proposal, they have taken account of costs in the very widest sense. The calculations which lead to this decision are clearly a function of management, which the Transport Act of 1962 laid fairly and squarely on the shoulders of the Board. It is this responsibility and nobody else's which it has freedom to exercise.
What do hon. Gentlemen opposite consider to be wrong with the procedure that we carry out? I know that it is anathema to them to mention money, but in spite of the magnificent reduction in the deficit this year by £22 million, the deficit still represents about 6d. on the Income Tax.

Mr. Monslow: I put a number of questions to the Minister to which I have had no reply. I think that instead of reading a Civil Service brief he should reply to the debate.

Mr. Galbraith: I am trying to answer some of the points, but the hon. Gentleman knows that it is getting late. What I am trying to say is that if one has this money to spend, is it right to spend it on keeping open lines which inquiry has shown are little used, where there is no hardship, and where there is no damage of a social kind? That is what I cannot understand about the party opposite.
Writing in the Scotsman, the right hon. Member for Vauxhall said—and he will be interested in this because we are going to agree—that if any socially desirable part of the system cannot pay its way it should be kept going from public funds. What are we quarrelling about? We on this side of the Committee have no wish to close lines which are socially desirable.
Why does the right hon. Gentleman think that we have kept open the Highland line? Why does he think that we have kept open the Central Wales line, the commuter lines from Coryton into Cardiff and the line from Sanderstead


into London, when they are losing vast sums of money, without their being any social reasons for keeping them open? Why do we close the rest? Because it is a sheer waste of public money to keep them open.
We decide these matters in the public interest, balancing social need against the cost to the citizen. In some cases that have come before us the taxpayer is actually subsidising each traveller to the extent of over £200 a year. When there are adequate alternatives, when there is no hardship, and when the roads are sufficient, we cannot see why the State should support in unnecessary luxury these privileged classes, and the party opposite—the champions of egalitarianism—should surely be with us in our endeavour to achieve social justice for all. Whatever they may feel in their hearts, however, I suppose that they have to be careful not to offend their powerful financial supporters.
The hon. Member for Southwark pledged his fellow union leaders in transport
not to shrink from the necessity of change,
but he quickly hedged in this bold statement with an undertaking to do nothing until they had
seen the problems of every other section of the industry.
What possible need is there to investigate the problems of other sections of the industry before taking a decision, for example, on the Elgin-Lossiemouth line—5 miles long, in respect of which there was one written objection, and when not a single person turned up at the public inquiry—bearing in mind that the line is losing the taxpayer £5,000 a year.

It is facts like this that make the protests of the Opposition such utter nonsense. We in the Government are proceeding in a scientific and humane manner to streamline yesterday's railway system so as to suit it to the needs of today. Where it is shown to be socially desirable we retain services which do not pay, but where these reasons do not exist, we get rid of them. The alternative of the Opposition is to keep them open but to make them pay by having what they call an integrated system, with the right balance between road and rail. That sounds all right at first, until we realise that the right balance is not to be what the customer or traveller wants but what the Opposition think that he should have.

The cat was let out of the bag by the hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Monslow), who has just been chiding me. Our way of doing things satisfies social need, and consumer choice and the national economy, but the Opposition, in the name of a theoretically right system, will squander the taxpayers' money and, what is far worse, deny people the freedom to travel how they want. I am glad that we are having this debate tonight. Transport is the touchstone that shows the Opposition in their true colours—well meaning, no doubt, but at heart tyrants, just the same.

Mr. Strauss: I beg to move, That Item Class IV, Vote 11 (Ministry of Transport), be reduced by £5.

Question put:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 199, Noes 256.

Division No. 132.]
AYES
[10.0. p.m.


Abse, Leo
Bradley, Tom
Dempsey, James


Ainsley, William
Brockway, A. Fenner
Diamond, John


Albu, Austen
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Doig, Peter


Alldritt, W. H.
Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Donnelly, Desmond


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Driberg, Tom


Awbery, Stan (Bristol, Central)
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Duffy, A. E. P. (Coine Valley)


Bacon, Miss Alice
Callaghan, James
Edelman, Maurice


Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)
Carmichael, Nell
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)


Beaney, Alan
Castle, Mrs. Barbara
Evans, Albert


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Chapman, Donald
Fernyhough, E.


Benn, Anthony Wedgwood
Cliffe, Michael
Fletcher, Eric


Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Collick, Percy
Foley, Maurice


Benson, Sir George
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)


Blackburn, F.
Crossman, R. H. S.
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)


Boardman, H.
Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Forman, J. C.


Boston, T. G.
Dalyell, Tam
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)


Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W.(Leics, S. W.)
Darling, George
Galpern, Sir Myer


Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)
Davies, Harold (Leek)
George, LadyMeganLloyd (Crmrthn)


Bowles, Frank
Daviee, S. O. (Merthyr)
Ginsburg, David


Boyden, James
Deer, George
Cordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Delargy, Hugh
Gourlay, Harry




Greenwood, Anthony
Melnnes, James
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Grey, Charles
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Short, Edward


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Mackenzie, Gregor
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
McLeavy, Frank
Skeffington, Arthur


Griffiths, W. (Exchange)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)


Gunter, Ray
Manuel, Archie
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)


Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Mapp, Charles
Small, William


Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Marsh, Richard
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Hannan, William
Mellish, R. J.
Snow, Julian


Harper, Joseph
Millan, Bruce
Sorensen, R. W.


Hart, Mrs. Judith
Milne, Edward
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Hayman, F. H.
Mitchison, G. R.
Spriggs, Leslie


Healey, Denis
Monslow, Walter
Steele, Thomas


Herbison, Miss Margaret
Moody, A. S.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Hewitson, Capt. M.
Morris, Charles (Openshaw)
Stonehouse, John


Holman, Percy
Morris, John (Aberavon)
Stones, William


Holt, Arthur
Moyle, Arthur
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Vauxhall)


Houghton, Douglas
Mulley, Frederick
Stross, SirBarnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)


Hoy, James H.
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Swain, Thomas


Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)
Swingler, Stephen


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Oliver, G. H.
Symonds, J. B.


Hunter, A. E.
O'Malley, B. K.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Hynd, John (Attercliffe)
Oswald, Thomas
Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)


Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Owen, Will
Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)


Janner, Sir Barnett
Padley, W. E.
Thornton, Ernest


Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas
Paget, R. T.
Thorpe, Jeremy


Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)
Tomney, Frank


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Pargiter, G. A.
Wade, Donald


Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Parker, John
Wainwright, Edwin


Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Pavitt Laurence
Watkins, Tudor


Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Weitzman, David


Kelley, Richard
Peart, Frederick
White, Mrs. Eirene


Kenyon, Clifford
Pentland, Norman




Popplewell, Ernest
Whitlock, William


Lawson, George
Prentice, R. E.
Wigg, George


Ledger, Ron
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry
Wilkins, W. A.


Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Randall, Harry
Willey, Frederick


Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Rankin, John
Williams, LI. (Abertillery)


Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
Redhead, E. C.
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)
Reynolds, G. W.
Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)


Lipton, Marcus
Rhodes, H.
Winterbottom, R. E.


Loughlin, Charles
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Woof, Robert


Lubbock, Eric
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Wyatt, Woodrow


Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


McCann, J.
Rodgers, W. T. (Stockton)



MacColl, James
Rogers, G. H. R. (Kensington, N.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


MacDermot, Niall
Ross, William
Mr. Ifor Davies and




Mr. Charles A. Howell.




NOES


Agnew, Sir Peter
Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)
Foster, Sir John


Allason, James
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (Stafford&Stone)


Amery, Rt. Hon. Julian
Cleaver, Leonard
Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)


Anderson, D. C.
Cole, Norman
Freeth, Denzil


Arbuthnot, Sir John
Cooke, Robert
Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.


Ashton, Sir Hubert
Cooper, A. E.
Gardner, Edward


Atkins, Humphrey
Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Giles, Rear-Admiral Morgan


Barber, Rt. Hon. Anthony
Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, Central)


Barlow, Sir John
Corfield, F. V.
Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)


Batsford, Brian
Costain, A. P.
Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Coulson, Michael
Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)


Bell, Ronald
Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Goodhart, Philip


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos &. Fhm)
Crawley, Aidan
Goodhew, Victor


Berkeley, Humphry
Critchley, Julian
Gough, Frederick


Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald
Crowder, F. P.
Gower, Raymond


Bidgood, John C.
Cunningham, Sir Knox
Green, Alan


Biffen, John
Curran, Charles
Gresham Cooke, R.


Biggs-Davison, John
Currie, G. B. H.
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)


Bingham, R. M.
Dalkeith, Earl of
Grosvenor, Lord Robert


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Dance, James
Gurden, Harold


Bishop, Sir Patrick
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Hall, John (Wycombe)


Black, Sir Cyril
Deedes, Rt. Hon. W. F.
Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)


Bossom, Hon. Clive
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.
Harris, Reader (Heston)


Bourne-Arton, A.
Doughty, Charles
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John
Drayson, G. B.
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)


Boyle, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward
Duthie, Sir William (Banff)
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
Eden, Sir John
Harvie Anderson, Miss


Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Hastings, Stephen


Browne, Percy (Torrington)
Elliott, R. W. (Newc'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Hay, John


Bullard, Denys
Emery, Peter
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel


Bullus, Wing Commander Eric
Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Henderson, Sir John (Cathcart)


Burden, F. A.
Errington, Sir Eric
Hendry, Forbes


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Fell, Anthony
Hiley, Joseph


Campbell, Gordon
Fisher, Nigel
Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)


Chataway, Christopher
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Hirst, Geoffrey







Hobson, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Mathew, Robert (Honiton)
Smyth, Rt. Hon. Brig. Sir John


Hocking, Philip N.
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)
Speir, Rupert


Hogg, Rt. Hon. Quintin
Maude, Angus (Stratford-on-Avon)
Stainton, Keith


Holland, Philip
Mawby, Ray
Stanley, Hon. Richard


Hollingworth, John
Maxwell-Hysiop, R. J.
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Hopkins, Alan
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Stodart, J. A.


Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Dame P,
Miscampbell, Norman
Storey, Sir Samuel


Howard, John (Southampton, Test)
Montgomery, Fergus
Studholme, Sir Henry


Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Summers, Sir Spencer



Morgan, William
Talbot, John E.


Hughes-Young, Michael
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Tapsell, Peter


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Iremonger, T. J.
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)


Jennings, J. C.
Neave, Airey
Taylor, Frank (M'ch'st'r, Moss Side)


Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Nugent, Rt. Hon. Sir Richard
Taylor, Sir William (Bradford, N.)


Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Oakshott, Sir Hendrie
Temple, John M.


Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Orr-Ewing, Sir lan (Hendon, North)
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Jones, Rt. Hn. Aubrey (Hall Green)
Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)
Thomas, Rt. Hon. Peter (Conway)


Joseph, Rt. Hon. Sir Keith
Partridge, E.
Thompson, Sir Kenneth (Walton)


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Korans, Cdr. J. S.
Peel, John
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. Peter


Kerby, Capt. Henry
Percival, lan
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Peyton, John
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Kershaw, Anthony
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth
Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon


Kimball, Marcus
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Turner, Colin


Kirk, Peter
Pitman, Sir James
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Kitson, Timothy
Pitt, Dame Edith
Van Straubenzee, W. R.


Lagden, Godfrey
Pounder, Rafton
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Lambton, Viscount
Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch
Vickers, Miss Joan


Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Prior, J. M. L.
Walder, David


Langford-Holt, Sir John
Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho
Walker Peter


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Proudfoot, Wilfred
Wall, Patrick


Lilley, F. J. P.
Pym, Francis
Ward, Dame Irene


Linstead, Sir Hugh
Quennell, Miss J. M.
Webster, David


Litchfield, Capt. John
Rawlinson, Rt. Hon. Sir Peter
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'nC'dfield)
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin
Whitelaw, William


Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Rees, Hugh (Swansea, W.)
Williams, Sir Rolf Dudley (Exeter)


Longbottom, Charles
Rees-Davies, W. R. (Isle of Thanet)
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Longden, Gilbert
Ronton, Rt. Hon. David
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Ridley, Hon. Nicholas
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


McAdden, Sir Stephen
Ridsdale, Julian
Wise, A. R.


MacArthur, lan
Robertson, Sir D. (C'thn's & S'th'ld)
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


McLaren, Martin
Robson Brown, Sir William
Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard


McMaster, Stanley R.
Roots, William
Woodhouse, Hon. Christopher


Maddan, Martin
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Woodnutt, Mark


Maginnis, John E.
Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)
Woollam, John


Maitland, Sir John
Russell, Sir Ronald
Worsley, Marcus


Markham, Major Sir Frank
Seott-Hopkins, James
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Marlowe, Anthony
Shaw, M.



Marples, Rt. Hon. Ernest
Shepherd, William



Marshall, Sir Douglas
Skeet, T. H. H.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Marten, Neil
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd & Chiswick)
Mr. Finlay and Mr. J. E. B. Hill

POLICE PENSIONS

10.10 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Henry Brooke): I beg to move,
That the Police Pensions (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 1964, a draft of which was laid before this House on 18th June, be approved.
These Regulations contain wholly desirable amendments to the Police Pensions Regulations, 1962, and they fall into three main categories which I will describe in turn. To the best of my knowledge, there is no controversy about the desirability of doing all the things that the new Regulations will do. The only controversy is not about anything that is in them, but about something that is not in them, and which the Police Federation would like to be in them. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I see that I am giving a completely accurate account of the situation.
Because everything in them is desirable in itself, I have not felt able any longer to delay bringing in these new Regulations in the hope that, quite soon, agreement might be reached on the point that lies outside them. Discussions on that point have already been going on within the Police Council for Great Britain for three years, and I do not think it right to delay any longer the grant of a lump sum to the widow of a policeman who loses his life through a criminal assault. These, surely, are the people we most want to help, and I cannot agree that the giving of help to them should be held up any longer.
I am referring now to Regulations 8 and 10, which provide for the payment of a lump sum to the widow or dependants of a policeman who dies after 1st August next from injury received from an attack that is likely to cause death. Regulations 7, 9, 11 and 12 contain consequential Amendments.
I see that the Police Federation has circulated a paper to all Members of Parliament in which it says that it is opposed to a Regulation that discriminates between the widows of policemen who lose their lives at the hands of a

dangerous criminal and the widows of policemen who lose their lives, for example, by falling from the roof of a building whilst attempting to arrest a criminal.
In fact, the Police Pensions Regulations have for many years differentiated between these two classes of widow—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] The widow whose husband has been killed as the result of an attack has, ever since 1953, been entitled, under the Regulations, to more favourable pension rights than the widow of a policeman who dies in the execution of his duty but not as a result of an attack. I have looked up the papers, and can find no trace of the Police Federation having opposed the provision in 1953 of different pension arrangements for these two classes of widows.
In the Regulations that I am asking the House to approve, the Government, therefore, are not introducing a differentiation for the first time. It is a fact that these two classes of case have long been differentiated in respect of pensions, and with the assent of the Federation. I think that there has always been among the public a specially deep sympathy for the widow and children of a policeman who has lost his life through a murderous attack upon him in the course of his duty.
The policeman, more than anyone else in civil life, is vulnerable to this terrible danger. He faces it unarmed, and with great courage, in the course of his very special job of protecting the public, and I have no doubt that it was for this reason that, in 1953, special pension arrangements were made in favour of the widow of a policeman who dies as the result of an attack.
About three years ago a proposal was discussed in the Police Council that the Regulations ought to provide for the payment of a lump sum in addition to pension for the widows of policemen who are killed on duty, or who, while on duty, receive injuries from which they die. For three years discussions have gone on in a sincere endeavour to reach agreement on the precise circumstances in which the payment should be made—that is, whether the payment should be made to the widows of the policemen who are murdered, or also to the widows of policemen who are not attacked but meet with their death while on duty.
These discussions started way back before my time as Home Secretary—in my predecessor's time—and a little time ago I reluctantly came to the conclusion that there was no prospect of agreement in the Police Council on this particular point. My statutory duty is to consult the Police Council, but the law does not say that I shall be directed by the Police Council and that I am to do nothing if the Council cannot reach any agreement.
What I am doing, therefore, is to bring forward the Regulations which will give greatly needed help to the widow and family of a policeman who is murdered on duty—and I expect that we can all think of some of those utterly tragic cases, and I am sure that these are the cases which the whole country most wants to see helped.
I am most ready to consider the whole question of other policemen's widows in respect of a pension and lump-sum payment to be further pursued in the context of a review of all the provisions of the existing police pensions arrangements, against the background of the pensions arrangements of other Services which provide lump-sum payments in addition to a pension.
I completely understand the desire of the Police Federation that other police widows should be provided with a lump sum in addition to a special pension, but I have to recognise, and the Government and the House have to recognise, that these difficulties and tragedies are faced not only by police widows, but by the widows of other men in various public services who face danger and death in carrying out their duties. But the policeman is the one man who is expected to confront a dangerous criminal. This is what singles out his job from all others in civil life.
It is not easy to distinguish the policeman's job in other respects from the jobs of other public servants who risk fatal injury through fire or other hazards which they may meet in doing their job. The police widow whose husband is murdered has been, as I say, recognised as a special case for pension purposes for many years, but it is not easy to see why the widow of a policeman who dies in doing his duty, not as a result of a murderous attack, should be more favourably treated by the authorities who employ him than,

for example, the widow of a fireman who is killed in a fire.

Mr. R. J. Mellish: Why not?

Mr. Brooke: Yet this is the result which Parliament would produce if it did what the Police Federation is now urging it to do. My belief, on the contrary, is that we ought to delay no longer in doing our duty by the widow of a policeman who is murderously attacked and that then the whole system of the police pension arrangements should be made the subject of a comprehensive review which I want to initiate against the background of the pension arrangements of other services.

Mr. Mellish: When?

Mr. Brooke: Immediately, as soon as all concerned are ready to co-operate.—[HON. MEMBERS: "Now."]—I want to see—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Persistent shouted interruptions from a sitting position are very disorderly and they ought not to continue.

Mr. Mellish: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way? He talks of doing this in a comprehensive review. Why has he the impudence to bring that before the House now when he knows that feelings are running very high? Why not do this now? What is all this rubbish about certain sections of the community? Why does the right hon. Gentleman not do this now for the police, for whom he is responsible, and do it properly?

Mr. Brooke: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman should say that it is impudence on my part to bring forward proposals which will give as a right to the widow of a policeman who has been murdered a lump-sum payment by way of compensation. That seems to be not an impudent action, but a wholly just action.

Mr. James Dempsey: My hon. Friend did not say that.

Mr. Brooke: I want to see this review taken in hand constructively and sympathetically. I hope that we shall receive the help of all the staff associations concerned, covering all ranks of the


police forces, in bringing it through to a satisfactory and successful conclusion.
It has been suggested that, although the widow of a murdered policeman should receive a lump sum as of right, a discretionary power should be given to a police authority to make a payment outside that category if it thinks the circumstances justify it. But, if we are to avoid injustice between one case and another, where the circumstances are similar, it must be for Parliament to define the circumstances which justify a lump sum payment.

Mr. Leslie Hale: I want to understand these Regulations. The right hon. Gentleman has said that the Police Federation did not mention this in 1953, but it certainly did before the Royal Commission, as he knows. As I understand the Regulations now, although they do not give a police authority a power or discretion to make a supplementary grant or a grant in special circumstances, they do give a police authority power to withhold a grant if it comes to the conclusion that the attack which the policeman suffered while on duty, though deliberately made, was not of a nature normally calculated to cause death. I appreciate that this is in the Regulations of 1962, but is it not a quite astonishing qualification to preserve in the light of present circumstances?

Mr. Brooke: The words which are used in these Regulations are exactly the words which have been in use for pension purposes ever since 1953, with the assent at the time of the Police Federation. Perhaps I may be allowed to complete my speech, Mr. Speaker, and then other hon. Members may have the opportunity to catch your eye.
I was saying that, if we are to avoid injustice between one case and another, where the circumstances are similar, it must be for Parliament to define the circumstances which justify a lump-sum payment. Discretionary powers in the hands of police authorities are applicable to the needs of the particular individual—indeed, Regulation 11 of the principal Regulations provides for that—but they are not applicable to the circumstances of the husband's death.
It is also argued that, because very few policemen die in the execution of their duty other than those who are murdered, the cost would be so small that it would be easy to make the extension. But it is not the cost which is the issue here. It is the anomalies which would be created as between one police widow and another and as between the police and other services.

Mr. Mellish: Rubbish.

Mr. Brooke: Before the hon. Gentleman continues to say "Rubbish" from a sedentary position, may I illustrate what I have just been saying?
On the Police Federation's proposals—

Mr. Hector Hughes: Does not the right hon. Gentleman—

Mr. Speaker: Order. If the Minister does not give way, the hon. and learned Gentleman must not persist.

Mr. Hector Hughes: Will the Minister now give way?

Mr. Brooke: I shall when I have finished what I am just about to say.
On the Police Federation's proposal, the widow of a policeman who was killed in a car crash when chasing and trying to arrest a criminal would receive a substantial lump sum. The widow of a policeman who was killed in a car crash on duty racing in response to a 999 call would not receive that payment. This would not seem a just distinction.

Mr. Hector Hughes: Does not the Home Secretary realise that he is drawing a wholly artificial distinction between the death of a policeman who is attacked while on duty and the death of a policeman who dies subsequently?

Mr. Brooke: I am not drawing any distinction between a policeman who dies during an attack and a policeman who dies after an attack. I am drawing a distinction between the policeman who dies as a result of an attack and the policeman who has not been attacked. It is far from being an artificial differentiation, and it is a differentiation which has existed in the pensions Regulations, approved by this House, and with the original assent of the Federation, for the past 10 years.

Mr. George Wigg: Would the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to help us by saying why he has not taken as the basic principle the one which applies in the Armed Forces: that is, if a soldier is on duty and incurs a disability by injury or effect on his health, if it arises in the course of service or is aggravated by the service, he is given a pension? Why does that not apply to the police service?

Mr. Brooke: There is a claim to pension. There is no question about there being a claim to pension. The widow of the policeman who dies in the exercise of his duty receives specially favourable pension terms and still more favourable pension terms if her husband was murdered in the execution of his duty. That is in the Regulations which have been approved by Parliament and which have operated for the past 10 years.
I spoke of anomalies within the police service. There would be anomalies in other Services. I have already mentioned the case of the fire service. It is extremely difficult to argue that the widow of a policeman who has not been murdered on duty but has died in the execution of his duty should be more favourably treated as regards lump sum compensation than the widow of a fireman who dies during the course of his extremely dangerous duties in dealing with fires.
A great deal of ironing out is needed if we are to get all this right, and that is why I want to put in hand a comprehensive review of the entire police pensions system which will take up the question of all types of police widow. In that we can look yet again and consider whether we can find better definitions which will avoid the sort of difficulties and anomalies which I have pointed out.

Mr. Mellish: The right hon. Gentleman said that for three years this matter has been under discussion. Will he please explain why it is that after three years he brings these half-baked proposals before us on a non-party basis but aggravates everybody, and why we have not had a comprehensive review? This is what I want to know.

Mr. Brooke: For three years the Police Council has been seeking, and failing, to reach agreement on this. [An HON. MEMBER: "Who with?"] I have been

asked with whom. The answer is, with the official side of the Police Council—

Mr. Mellish: That is you.

Mr. Brooke: —which consists, as to the majority, of representatives of the police authorities—that is, the watch committees and standing joint committees—and, as to the minority, the Home Office.
Because a number of points of disagreement have been thrown up apart from this, I have initiated the proposal that we should have a comprehensive review. I greatly hope that there will be a response to that from the various associations concerned, so that we can carry it out. I see no reason why, with cooperation, that should not be completed so that new regulations on which agreement is reached can be brought in next year. But I am asking the House to approve—

Mr. Norman Cole: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the close definition of the Police Council for extending these projected Regulations is death while in the course of attempting to make an arrest as distinct from an attack on the person carrying out an arrest? To use the anomaly to which he referred, which, with great respect, I do not think takes us very far, does he think that a car going to answer a 999 call could constitute endeavouring to make an arrest? For all that the man in the car knows, there would be nobody to arrest at the other end.

Mr. Brooke: That is the point that I was making. I was saying that if we were to do what the Police Federation asked we should be making an unjust differentiation between two policemen who were both racing in a car on duty.

Mr. Cole: My point is that there is no suggestion that in answering a 999 call a policeman is endeavouring to make an arrest. But if he is going to apprehend someone on an objective crime, he is endeavouring to make an arrest.

Mr. Brooke: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. But I find it extremely difficult to see why the widow of one of those men should receive more than £2,000 and the widow of the other should receive nothing. That is what would follow if we were to adopt the Police Federation's present definition.
I see no reason why, with co-operation, we could not complete this review reasonably quickly, but I am asking the House to approve these Regulations without further delay so that, if a policeman is murdered, his wife and children can receive compensation as of right without holding up this act of justice any longer, as the Police Federation is urging me to do, until other matters are settled.
The House will wish me to explain the Regulations themselves. Regulation 8 inserts a new Regulation into the principal Regulations entitling a widow of a policeman who dies as the result of being attacked to a special rate of pension, as at present, and to a gratuity of the amount of twice the maximum annual rate of pay of a man constable. On present rates, this would amount to something over £2,000.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Mr. Arthur Lewis (West Ham, North) rose—

Mr. Brooke: I had better complete this explanation of the Regulations.
Regulation 7 preserves the entitlement to a special pension of a widow whose husband dies as the result of an injury on duty. Regulation 10 inserts a new Regulation providing for the payment of a gratuity, of the same amount as would have been payable to a widow, to a child of a policeman or of a policewoman who dies as the result of an attack in the case where a policeman leaves no widow or a policewoman was the child's only surviving parent. If there is more than one child in the family entitled to the gratuity, the gratuity is to be shared equally between the children. There are consequential amendments in Regulations 9, 11 and 12.
I should refer also to the other and, to the best of my belief, wholly uncontroversial Regulations. Regulations 1 and 13 to 16 relate to the pension arrangements for inspectors of constabulary and officers in some form of central service, such as the Police Research and Planning Branch of the Home Office. The 1962 Regulations are applied to these officers in a manner similar to the way in which they are already applied to policemen temporarily engaged under the control of the Secretary of State in overseas service.
Regulation 15 provides that these officers shall be treated for pension purposes as members of a police force, and the effect of Regulation 16 is that the Regulations shall apply to them as if the Secretary of State were their police authority. This is an important step in the development of the service in the directions recommended by the Royal Commission. It formalises the arrangements for assigning serving police officers to carry out certain services that are better done centrally or collectively than by individual forces. It also completes the process of making it easier for chief officers of police to become inspectors of constabulary by providing that newly appointed inspectors will remain under the police pension code. There is no disagreement about these proposals. They are accepted by the local authority associations and by the service associations.
Regulation 4 provides revised arrangements for commuting part of a policeman's pension for a lump sum and Regulations 2, 3 and 6 contain consequential amendments. The important point here is that a policeman will no longer be required to satisfy the police authority of his good health if he wishes to commute part of his pension. Also, the part of the pension which he may commute is increased from one-sixth to one-quarter. These are changes for which there has been considerable demand. I am extremely glad to help in meeting that demand.
It is particularly valuable because the police pensions code as it stands does not provide for the automatic payment of a lump sum on retirement, whereas police officers have a special need for a lump sum payment. Many of them, especially in county forces, live in police houses while they are serving and, on retirement, they need to buy houses of their own. The requirement that there should be a special medical examination at the end of a man's service before he can commute any part of his pension has meant that up to now he could not make plans for house purchase in advance.
Regulation 5 sets out the current provisions incorporating amendments as to allocation of part of a pension. The amendments enable a serving policeman who has already allocated a portion of his pension in favour of a dependant to increase his allocation, and, if that dependant


dies, to allocate a portion in favour of some other dependant.
To sum up, what we are proposing to do in these Regulations is, so far as I am aware, universally agreed in itself. The Police Federation has informed Members of Parliament that it objects to the Regulations not because of anything which is in them, but because of something which is not in them. This has been discussed in the Police Council over a period of three years, and the reason why I have felt it necessary, felt it right, to bring these Regulations forward now is that it seemed wholly wrong that if a policeman should be murdered on duty now we would not be able to give his widow, as of right, a lump-sum payment simply because these Regulations had been delayed through lack of agreement.
I therefore suggest to the House that we should agree these Regulations tonight, and then, if we can have the co-operation of all concerned, go forward with a general and comprehensive review of all police pension arrangements.

10.36 p.m.

Mr. James Callaghan: I should like to make it clear at the outset that although I speak from this Box I do not speak this evening for the Labour Party. It so happens that, as most hon. Gentlemen know, I have been consultant to the Police Federation now for many years—indeed, through practically the whole period in which the negotiating machinery has existed, so I therefore think that I may claim to have a unique knowledge of the facts which led up to this controversy tonight. I should like to put those facts as objectively as I can before the House and leave the House to make up its own mind as to the conclusions to be drawn from them.
I must, first, come to the point which the Home Secretary made that in 1953 certain anomalies were created because some pensions were discretionary and some were not and, therefore, were not negotiated. This ignores the fundamental point, and that is that there was no negotiating machinery in 1953 and there were no means at all of reaching the point of view of the service. I do not want to "raise the temperature" in any way, but I am bound to say that I think that many of the things done before 1954

would not have been done if negotiating machinery had existed at that time, and I say to the Home Secretary that he really has no ground to stand on if he seeks to represent the absence of the negotiating machinery as justification for an anomaly against which he says the Police Federation did not protest at that particular time.
This problem arose in 1961, and it arose simultaneously in the Federation and in the House of Commons. I have always, as far as I could, kept these problems away from the House of Commons. I have felt that as long as negotiating machinery existed they should be thrashed out there, among those intimately concerned, because a forum of this sort here, with all due respect to all right hon. and hon. Members, is not the best place to thrash out these difficult and intricate issues. I have no alternative tonight, however, because the Home Secretary has, for the first time in the history of the negotiating machinery, brought to the House of Commons Regulations not agreed by the Police Council. This is a very serious thing to do. I think the Home Secretary recognises that to take upon himself to lay Regulations which have not the assent of both sides of the Police Council is bound to lead, as in this case it is leading, to a very considerable feeling of dissatisfaction, as I think every hon. Member is aware.
What I pressed privately on more than one Minister—I was not anxious for this to go through—was that they should withdraw this offending Regulation, relay all the parts that are agreed, but not endeavour to force through this Regulation which is not agreed. I was very surprised—I must say this to the Home Secretary—when he put all of these Regulations, all of which have been agreed except one, before the House without separating off this one. He can do it—he is entitled to do it—but I would normally have expected him to place them separately. I will not ascribe any motives. I merely say that I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman did not do that on this occasion.
This matter was raised in 1961, when the hon. Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. F. Harris) asked the then Under-Secretary of State for the Home


Department when the Home Office would insure police officers against being killed on duty. The Under-Secretary said that he thought not, that the general arrangements for pensions were satisfactory and that there was no need to extend them in this way. The hon. Member then asked the Under-Secretary whether he would not review the position. The Under-Secretary said that he did not think there was any need to. This was all on 22nd June, 1961. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for West Ham, South (Mr. Elwyn Jones), in whose constituency two police officers had recently been shot and killed, said that so far from there being any general satisfaction there was very intense dissatisfaction in his constituency about the compensation payment.
The hon. Member for Croydon, North-West gave notice that he would raise the matter on the Adjournment, and got in touch with me. I asked him not to do so. I said that the negotiating machinery was there for the purpose. I have my letter here. I said, "Let us try to get rid of this without troubling the House of Commons with it." At my request, the hon. Member agreed not to raise the matter on the Adjournment so that we could negotiate about it.
I think that the whole House will be astonished that it has taken three years to try to reach a conclusion on a matter of this sort. I cannot take the House through the whole of the correspondence. I merely show the House my file containing three years' work in connection with something which has affected, during the last 20 years, about 15 members of the police service. I am astonished that we should spend so much time and labour and have so many working parties and so many meetings of the Police Council trying to get a tiny issue like this settled. I do not think that it is good enough for the Home Secretary to come forward at the very last moment and say "All right. Maybe there is something that ought to be looked at. Let us have a comprehensive review." I wonder what all this has been about. There is no more that anybody can say on this issue—

Mr. Brian Harrison: The hon. Gentleman is putting forward a very

plausible case and has a great deal of sympathy on both sides. He says that the Regulation was laid some time ago and that this dissatisfaction has been going on for some considerable time. He says that there is no political motive at all in any arrangements that have been going on. We would all accept that. But what some of us find rather hard to understand is why we received telegrams yesterday, at such short notice, and today, without notice, were approached by a number of our friends in the service; why we were not seen, for instance, several days ago, at the weekend, when we were in our constituencies, or in the period between when the Regulations were laid and the debate tonight, so that we could have had a chance of seeing what the problem is and understanding it.

Mr. Callaghan: I do not think that this is an important point but the answer is, simply, as I know all the events that have taken place, that the Regulations were laid so quickly. The Federation has had to act extremely quickly. It has not had the time to act in the leisurely way in which it would otherwise have done. No one knew until last Thursday that the Regulations would be considered today. That is the whole reason for it. There is nothing more sinister behind it than that.
I think that it is a measure of the feeling in the service that, when the Joint Central Committee of the Federation informed its members of this and suggested that they should approach hon. Members about it and put them in the picture, there was this remarkable response. It shows that there is very real feeling about this matter.
Now I come to the points of substance. I find it difficult to know which one to take out of the many. But probably the central point is the claim that we should create anomalies if we did what is suggested by the Federation. The simple answer to that is that the Home Secretary himself, in his own Regulation, is creating anomalies. It seeks to differentiate between men killed in one circumstance and men killed in another.
I say to hon. Members that this is a result of the Federation being conciliatory. The original claim that it put in would have created no anomalies because it provided that every man killed on duty would get a gratuity. Because resistance


was met to that proposal, because it was argued that firemen and others are in a similar position, the Federation narrowed its claim. It said, "If it is your feeling that firemen are also put in circumstances in which they may lose their lives, we will narrow our claim to those policemen who are killed whilst making an arrest because that is something peculiar to police duty. Only a policemen is involved in making an arrest."
Thus, to try to reach agreement the Federation—some may even say that it was weak about it—decided to cut out of the category the case of the policeman who, for instance, might dive into a canal to save a child and be drowned himself, or the officer on point duty knocked down and killed.
The Home Secretary is not entitled to say that, because we have been driven back into narrowing the ground ourselves and suggesting that this should be limited to men making an arrest, anomalies would be created by the Federation. The anomalies were being created from the moment that the Home Office—and the Home Office is the nigger in the woodpile here—refused to entertain a general claim that the widow of any man killed on duty should be give a gratuity. I cannot stress that too strongly.
Having reached that point, the official side said that we must limit this to men attacked while making an arrest. This is where the anomalies come in, as every hon. Member circulated with the form will see. A very clear anomaly arises when two men are in hot pursuit of a wanted man and one is shot and killed while the other is accidentally killed while attempting to affect the arrest. The widow of the officer who is shot will get a gratuity, while the widow of the officer accidentally killed in pursuit of the same arrest will not get a gratuity.
The Home Secretary says he does not propose to deny to widows any longer such benefit as he feels able to concede. I can give him the answer. For 50 years there has never been a gratuity. Whenever a man has been killed in these circumstances, the police have made a collection among themselves and have given the sum collected to the widow. They are prepared to go on

doing that rather than have the men divided up in this way.
The answer is that no widow would be worse off if the right hon. Gentleman refused to proceed with the Regulations. I am speaking with full authority in saying that, for that is the feeling that exists among the men. They are ready to draw the distinction between those who go out after an arrest and get killed and those who are not. They are not ready to draw a distinction between men killed as the result of an attack upon their persons and those killed by other circumstances, such as falling through a roof during a chase or another accident when attempting to make an arrest.
I now come to the question of discretion. Again, in an attempt to reach agreement—and I promise the House that all the concessions here came from the staff side—the Federation said to the Home Office and the official side, "Make it mandatory in the case of the man who is killed; make it obligatory in that case so that you must pay it automatically". The official side was ready to do that. The Federation went on, "But if you feel some qualms about it in the case of the man killed when in hot pursuit, give discretion to the police authority to decide". This was an attempt to make a concession to the official side. The Home Secretary now turns it against the men and says that this in itself will create anomalies.
I put this as quietly as I can: every time the police service has retreated, that retreat has been used as an opportunity for the Home Office to advance one more step and prove that a proposal is even more anomalous. This has caused deep feeling, for this matter has been carefully followed throughout the service.
Police authorities already have laid upon them the responsibility of giving discretionary pensions. I do not know whether the Home Secretary has been briefed on this, but I promise him that Regulation 12 of the Police Regulations provides that in certain circumstances the police authority must decide whether to award a special pension. If police authorities can be entrusted with the responsibility of deciding whether a special pension should be given in discretionary


circumstances to be considered by themselves, why should they not be given the equal responsibility of deciding whether a gratuity is properly due?

Sir Rolf Dudley Williams: I wish to revert to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr. B. Harrison), who said that the Regulations had been tabled some time ago. The hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), who is replying on behalf of the Opposition—

Mr. Callaghan: No, I am not.

Sir R. Dudley Williams: Then on behalf of the Police Federation. I understand that he has some financial association with the Federation.

Mr. Brian O'Malley: Cheap.

Sir R. Dudley Williams: There is nothing wrong in that. We all know that the hon. Gentleman is associated with the Police Federation.

Mr. Mellish: The hon. Gentleman is just an objector. All he can do is object.

Sir R. Dudley Williams: No one has any objection to the hon. Gentleman's interest in the Police Federation. We have all been bombarded with telegrams today. The hon. Gentleman said that the Police Federation had no knowledge of this matter until last Thursday. In fact, the Regulations were tabled on 18th June.

Mr. Callaghan: The hon. Gentleman may have a point; I do not know. I am trying to put the facts before the House as honestly as I can. I am trying to be objective; I do not think that I am wholly succeeding, but I am trying to be honest about the way I put the facts.
I come now to another material point, and I beg hon. Gentlemen to note it. During the course of the long and tortuous negotiations on this issue a working party was set up. It was made up of representatives from both sides. The working party made four recommendations which were considered by the Police Council on 25th July, 1963. The working party recommended that the payment of a lump sum in addition to a widow's special pension should be obligatory whenever a member of a force had died as a result of an attack upon his person, and that police authorities should also

be given the discretionary power to award such a lump sum whenever a member of a force, though not attacked, had died as the result of injuries sustained because he exposed himself to special risk in attempting to make an arrest.
These were recommendations of a working party set up by both sides of the Council. I must say that the representative of the Association of Municipal Corporations dissented from the recommendation, but not on those grounds, It was because of some other grounds with which I will not weary the House now. We were faced with the position in which the working party with one dissentient for another reason was ready to accept this discretionary power to be given, and it would have given it had it not been for the Home Office. When it came before the full Council, it was clear that it was the Home Office representatives who were denying the opportunity—as they have done so consistently, I regret to inform the House—of reaching agreement on this issue.
If a working party is set up—and anybody who has been concerned with pay negotiations knows this—and it comes forward with a recommendation, the odds are very good that that joint recommendation will be acceptable by the larger body. In this case, for very unusual reasons, it was turned down.
Because it was impossible to get agreement—in my view, because the Home Office was being particularly obdurate and obscurantist—another working party was set up and the matter was referred back because the staff side would not agree to differentiations. This working party reported on 17th July. It repeated the same recommendations, and added this note in paragraph 7:
The official side members
that is, the Home Office plus local authorities—
do not necessarily all dissent from the general trend of these arguments"—
that is a very negative way of putting the positive fact that many members of the official side were in favour of doing what the House has now been asked by the Police Federation to do—
though the A.M.C. representative has not felt able to modify his previous objections to all the recommendations"—
I ask the House to note these words—
and the representative of the Home Office considers that recommendation (b)—


the discretionary recommendation—
should now be abandoned for the reasons advanced at the meeting of the Council.
There is only one conclusion to be drawn from that, and that is that if only the official side had been willing in the first place to concede a lump-sum payment to the widow of a man killed on duty there would have been none of this difficulty. It is negligible in amount. During the last 20 years 15 policemen have been murdered. There would be an additional sum to be added in respect of those killed on duty, but the sum is trifling. We have been put in this position because the Home Office has gone on pushing and shoving the whole time.
I do not know whether the firemen should be included in this or not. That is not the purpose of this discussion, but it may well be argued that they should, and I would be the last to say that they should not. But that is not the purpose of this discussion. The question before the House is whether the widows of policemen who are killed on duty should be given a special gratuity. This is the only question before the House, and the right hon. Gentleman knows that he could withdraw these Regulations, and I make one last appeal to him to do so. He could relay them tomorrow.
There need be no delay. There will be no cost in this. Thank goodness, there has not been a case of this sort for two years. This is a nugatory matter, and I cannot accept the right hon. Gentleman's view that we should embark on a comprehensive review of all the Police Pensions Regulations. It will take years to do that. There will be a happy hunting ground for the next five years if we have a comprehensive review of the Regulations.
Why do we have to go through all this to do simple justice to the wives of men who are in an exposed and dangerous position? Whatever my financial, interest, I am glad to say that over the years I have become friends with many of them.

10.59 p.m.

Mr. Norman Cole: Because of the lateness of the hour, I wish to make only one or two points about these Regulations. When I read them, I wondered why it had taken

us until 1964 to recognise the right of the widows of men killed in civil life to receive any kind of lump-sum payment. I do not think that this state of affairs does credit to the nation as a whole. Nevertheless, we have at last got down to doing something.
My right hon. Friend's proposals go at least part of the way to dealing with the problem, but not as far as many of us would like. I have never, in relation to any kind of matter, considered that sympathy should be qualified by a respect for precedent. If the only thing in my right hon. Friend's mind is the fear that we may open up the way to the widows of others in the civil services—in services which protect our lives and property—possibly getting a lump-sum gratuity which they do not get at the moment, I am not frightened to face that issue—and, in fairness, I do not believe that the House would be frightened to face it. If that is the sort of case in respect of which we are to create a precedent by allowing the proposition of the Police Federation, let us risk the precedent and face it as it comes along.
In proposing these Regulations my right hon. Friend said that ipso facto the policeman enrolled in the force was, in the course of his duty, expected to confront a dangerous criminal. I presume that that connotes a certain element in his pay to cover that predictability. But without being too logistic about it, if, by these Regulations, we are recognising that risk by paying a gratuity to the widow of a policeman who dies when he is attacked and, therefore, in that case, accepting the necessity for compensation in respect of the ordinary duty of the officer, how can we say that since the policeman has to take on this kind of duty because of his job his widow is not entitled to compensation if he is killed in the course of making an arrest? The same argument cannot be used to prove two different things.
It would be more consistent to say that because it is part of a policeman's duty to risk his life no compensation can flow to a widow, because, knowing that her husband is a policeman, she should take the rough with the smooth. But since we have allowed the principle of compensation in the case of the policeman who is killed at the point


of arrest because of the attack of a criminal, for goodness' sake let us be reasonably generous and fair in implementing it.
My right hon. Friend was good enough to address his mind to the implications of the example he quoted. But I do not think that it was a very substantial example. He also raised the question of the amount of anomaly and confusion, and the rest, that would flow if we opened this gateway widely.
But already implemented and indicated in my right hon. Friend's Regulations is a high degree of two-way thinking. What exactly is an attack? In the case that occurred in Croydon, many years ago—which will be within the recollection of many hon. Members—the young man who was eventually executed might have waved a revolver in various directions and killed two policemen and injured a third. Was that an attack, or was it done in self-protection? Is this to be settled in the High Court, as a matter of definition?
The kind of attack is not specified in the Regulations. Although this may be a minor matter in terms of numbers, it is not a minor matter for the widows. Over the years to come we shall have a number of cases where these matters will be fought out. To be frightened of a little more discretion being given to the police authorities, when they already have such a large amount of discretion under the Regulations, strikes me as being the poorest of all reasons.
My right hon. Friend has referred to the review which he thinks should take place on the whole of this matter. I commend that, because I think that in 1964 it is high time that we should address our minds to proper compensation for those whose husbands protect us in the course of our daily lives. I make no comment on that proposal except to say that I am glad to hear it; but I do not think that it is the same kind of matter that we are considering at the moment.
I do not make any point about this being a de minimis operation. As I said a moment ago, it is not de minimis for the widow. Neither am I frightened of the respective comparisons as between one police authority and another. My

experience of these authorities leads me to believe that they will be generous in the matter, and I do not call them to task for being so. I believe that the police forces throughout the country can be assured of the fair treatment which they will receive from their employing authorities.
I make one last request to my right hon. Friend. It is that if he feels that because of all that has gone on he cannot at this moment widen this restrictive definition, which is by no means entirely clear—and this is a human matter for the whole House—he will reconsider what I am sure has been put to him many times before, and again tonight by the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), that is, that he will get on with those things that will help the people concerned and do so in co-operation with the Federation, which is willing to wait even after three years if it is able to get something wider than this definition.
I ask my right hon. Friend to reconsider the matter, irrespective of what may be the result of the Division, if we have one, tonight. This is a matter in which I feel that the whole House can show its humanity, whether it be a free vote or a party vote. I feel that we could at least redress some of the omissions in years past.

Mr. Hale: I do not rise to controvert anything that the hon. Gentleman has said. I agree with him, but I would remind him of the very well-known case of Smith, the motor car killing of a policeman—the motorist being engaged in a felonious business—where the court of assize said that it was murder, where the Court of Criminal Appeal said that it was not and where the House of Lords said that it was. In such a case the police authority could say that it was not the kind of attack which was necessarily likely to result in death and, therefore, the widow would not get a pension.

Mr. Cole: I could have taken these Regulations apart in many ways, but I will not do so.
I will make this my last point. The question of whether or not it was an attack would still be within the decision of the local police authority and I imagine that in most cases the authority would err on the side of generosity. I


hope that it would. Why is it not possible to open the matter a little further and make it a discretion on the part of the police authority?

11.9 p.m.

Mr. L. M. Lever: Tonight is not the first occasion in the history of Police Regulations in regard to widows of policemen where we have had a constant agitation. I remember that when I first came into the House in 1952 the Home Office was approached to assimilate the position of widows of policemen. We had three kinds of policemen's widows. I thought that there was only one kind of policeman's widow, namely, the widow of a policeman. There were three kinds of widows. There were the pre-Oaksey widows, the transitional widows and the post-Oaksey widows. They were all treated differently by the Home Office in regard to those Regulations. After years of agitation and position now is assimilated.
I want to ask the Home Secretary to alter his attitude tonight and to emphasise the grave dissatisfaction that is felt not only in the Police Federation and by members of police forces, but in the minds of the public generally. I can assure the Home Secretary that the attitude of the public is that the policemen who protect them are entitled to be assured that if, as a result of giving that protection, something happens to them, their widows will not be left penniless and their children will not suffer.
The limited scope of these Regulations is a serious matter. It is no good the right hon. Gentleman saying, "Pass them tonight and then I will go into the whole position comprehensively." Only three weeks of effective work remain for this Parliament. The right hon. Gentleman has very little time left to him in which to act. I want him to act immediately, to take the Regulations away tonight and, next week, bring forward a comprehensive set of Regulations. The right hon. Gentleman knows all that he need know about the subject. No new facts or knowledge need be placed before him. Despite the differences which he says exist within the Police Council, there are no such differences from the point of view of the Police Federation. The right hon. Gentleman claims that because of these differences he is introducing a

limited provision, but he has the power to introduce a comprehensive set of Regulations.

Mr. Callaghan: I can assure my hon. Friend that if the Home Secretary said that he would agree to this there would be no division on the Police Council of any major nature. There would be on a minor matter, but not on the major point of principle.

Mr. Lever: I am obliged to my hon. Friend for that intervention, because he has particular knowledge of these matters. His speech tonight was reasonable and fair, one to which no hon. Member could take exception. This is, after all, not a party matter. Hon. Members opposite are equally sympathetic as my hon. Friends on this issue and I hope that the Home Secretary will withdraw the Regulations and introduce, within a few days, an adequate set.
We do not want to wait for a future Parliament to put the matter right, especially since there will not be another Parliament for three or four months—and anything could happen during that time. As the Home Secretary himself said, this is an urgent matter, so why will he not include this other limited section of the police force? We must also consider the attitude of the right hon. Gentleman towards recruitment. Local authorities are anxious to recruit the best element in the community into the police force, a most honourable occupation, but one involving certain risks. I do not want those who are contemplating a career as a policeman to feel that they are exposing their wives and families to unnecessary risks and anxiety.
As a member of a local authority. I must ask the Home Secretary why he cannot trust local police authorities to use their discretion in this matter. Too frequently does the Home Office adopt the attitude of wishing to take away some of the powers of police authorities in deciding many local problems of which they have exclusive knowledge. It is a reflection on the police authorities when the Home Secretary says that we cannot trust them to use their discretion in these matters.
I do not want to say anything more—the case has been very well put by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff,


South-East (Mr. Callaghan) and by the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, South (Mr. Cole). There is really no difference in any part of the House on this matter. It is only a small job to put this right. "He who gives quickly, gives twice," and I therefore appeal to the Home Secretary—and I am sure that he realises the temper of the House and of the country, and the feeling of the Police Federation—to say, "I have heard what has been said. I realise that whilst I was trying to do something good in this way, what is put forward is only limited in scope. I will take the Regulations back, and do the right thing for men who are a credit to the country."

11.16 p.m.

Mr. John Hall: I am a little reluctant to intervene, because I know that my right hon. Friend approaches the many problems that come before him with considerable honesty and sincerity, and I am quite sure that in placing these Regulations before the House tonight he has done what he thought to be best for all those likely to be affected by them. Nevertheless, there are one or two things that puzzle me.
I want to make it plain, as has been made plain already by those who have so far spoken, that this is not a party issue, but a question of ensuring as best we can that ordinary justice is done to a body of men who have not been too well treated in the past—and who are not, indeed, always very well supported or well treated today by those who should support them.
My right hon. Friend has said that we should pass these Regulations tonight and so enable him to give at least to the widows of those who are actually killed by a direct action in affecting arrest—that is, are murdered—some kind of compensation, and not hold it up; and that thereafter we could have what he called a "comprehensive review." As he has mentioned that other public servants, such as firemen, are affected, presumably such a comprehensive review would have to take into account all the other arrangements made for other public servants—perhaps even members of the Armed Services—and it would be a very long and, indeed, tedious operation. I find it hard to understand, after

we have heard that the present negotiations have gone on for three years or thereabouts, why that kind of comprehensive review has not been undertaken already.
The hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) referred in an intervention to the position in the Armed Forces. I would be the first to agree that the position there is not on all fours with the position in the police force. Nevertheless, those who join either the Armed Forces or the police force do so knowing that there is an element of personal risk involved. If the Armed Forces are involved in, say, a local engagement, the infantry may be ordered to go forward. If a man is killed by an enemy bullet, his widow is given a war pension which is different from the pension she might have got had her husband died by accident or in the ordinary course of his service, but not in war. The man's companion, by his side, might escape the enemy bullets, but fall into a shell hole and break his neck. His widow will get the same war pension as the widow of the man who was shot.
I find it very difficult to distinguish between the man who, when actually making an arrest, is killed by a bullet, a dagger or a cosh, and the man who dies as a result of an accident—falling off a roof, or the like—when attempting to do precisely the same thing—

Mr. A. Lewis: Or even going to the assistance of his colleague who is being attacked and then falling through a skylight and being killed.

Mr. Hall: I thank the hon. Member for that intervention.
I am aware that the official reaction to this kind of thing is that there may be many other cases which might be called to the attention of the Government as deserving of the same treatment as that which we are asking for the police. It is true that we may find firemen saying, "The risks which we face are equal to those faced by the police and it is only right and proper that if we are killed in the execution of our duty our widows should have the same kind of gratuity." If that is so, they are absolutely right. Why should not they have it? If a man dies in the service of the public there is a case for giving a gratuity of a special nature to his widow.
I have great respect for the integrity and intellectual honesty of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. I am certain that if he can be persuaded by the House, acting as; a House and not from a party point of view, that a good case has been made out for this payment to the widows of policemen who have been killed, or have died whilst attempting to make an arrest, and that a good case has been made out for accepting the Police Federation's view that it should be left to the decision of the local authorities or whatever bodies are set up whether an award should be made in certain cases, and if he is convinced of the justice of the case, he would be prepared to consider withdrawing the Regulations and re-presenting them in a form acceptable to the House.
I suggest now that to overcome the problem of possibly some widows being left without the compensation offered by these Regulations, the future Regulations, when presented, should be retrospective in effect. In other words, if a man is killed between now and the laying of the fresh Regulations his widow should be entitled to the compensation set out in the present Regulations, with effect from tonight or whatever date it might be decided. I understand the problem facing my right hon. Friend, but I beg him to take account of the very deep feeling on both sides of the House which is dictated only by our desire to see that justice is done to a well-deserving body of men who have served the nation extremely well.

11.23 p.m.

Mr. A. Fenner Brockway: As I listened to the Home Secretarys' speech, my reaction was one of meeting it in the spirit of controversy. That is not the spirit in which I now want to speak. It has become perfectly obvious in the debate that on both sides of the House we desire some reconsideration of the decision which the Home Secretary has reached. I believe that that feeling is as deep in the minds of hon. Members opposite as it is on this side of the House.
This is not only a matter of human feeling. We all have that emotion, but as we have listened to the debate we have become convinced that on rational grounds as well the Home Secretary ought to respond to the appeal which is being made to him to reconsider the

Regulations. I can say to the right hon. Gentleman that if he will do that we shall not regard it as a victory for our side. We shall regard it as a victory for human feeling, for common sense and for the attitude of the whole House.
I beg of the right hon. Gentleman, in that spirit, to take the view which is being expressed in the House and agree to the withdrawal of the Regulations.

11.25 p.m.

Sir Spencer Summers: It is, perhaps, a coincidence, Mr. Speaker, that I happen to be the third Member from Buckinghamshire who has caught your eye, but it will not be a coincidence, I think, that all three of us sing the same tune.
I am one of those who feel very unhappy at the situation in which we have been placed this evening. If we act in accordance with our real feelings about what ought to be done, we shall deny to some widows certain benefits under these Regulations. This we should regret. Nevertheless, I hope that this may be seen—there has been reference already to the absence of a desire to make it a party question—as one of those rather rare occasions when back benchers bring an influence to bear on the Front Bench. It is a matter not of one side bringing an influence to bear on the other, but of back benchers on both sides bringing an influence to bear on the Government Front Bench.
I believe that the vast majority of hon. Members who have been listening to this debate consider that the Regulations draw the line between those who get gratuity in addition to pension and those who do not in the wrong place. No doubt, we could take a long time in debating what would be the wiser line—I mean not a line giving rise to fewer anomalies, but a line drawn in a better place than it is now. The idea of drawing it where death occurs in the course of making an arrest has the merit of not being challenged by the Police Federation. This, to me, does not give it any particular sacrosanct wisdom, but it is a consideration which should carry weight that those who represent the police and, presumably, their widows, should there be any, feel that that is a reasonable place to draw it.
I was sorry that the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), the tone of whose speech was, I thought, so fitting for this occasion, marred what he had to say in one respect, by accusing the Home Secretary of himself bringing in anomalies by drawing the line where he has. There would have been many anomalies if the line had been drawn between those killed on duty and the rest. Perhaps anomalies are inescapable. But I urge my right hon. Friend to realise that the House is not satisfied. I do not claim to speak for the House, of course—that would be far too arrogant—but I sincerely judge that the House is not satisfied with the place where the line is drawn.
We have had many expressions of view from the other side which should make it easier for my right hon. Friend to think again, and I hope very much that the back benches will prevail in this matter.

11.28 p.m.

Mr. R. J. Mellish: I am obliged to hon. Members opposite who have spoken, for they have set the tone for this debate. Had I been called immediately after the Home Secretary's speech, I should probably have ruined the atmosphere by losing my temper and saying things I ought not to say. But, if I may use the expression, I have been sobered down by the intelligence of some of the speeches from hon. Gentlemen opposite.
I do not deny the integrity of the right hon. Gentleman. Deep down he is a kindly and decent man, but he has an extraordinary capacity for putting his foot right in it. If anyone can spoil a good thing, it is he.
We started off with the idea of trying to remove some of the anomalies. The right hon. Gentleman has made a gesture which, by and large, is fairly generous. I must declare an interest here. I come from a family of policemen. My brother was a policeman, and I have relatives who are policemen. I have a young son who is a policeman, and, incidentally, his 19-year-old friend is now seriously ill in hospital after having been battered by thugs at 3 o'clock in the morning. His life is in danger. The House will understand, therefore, that I feel emotional about these things. I do

not claim special consideration on that ground, of course. My 18 years' experience tells me that one must have a good factual case.
I put this example to the Home Secretary. A friend of mine who is a policeman went out at 3 o'clock in the morning, on night duty in a squad car, one of the police cars familiar to us all. He was sent following a 999 call to a reported burglary at Sidcup. The car sped to the scene of the crime. There were only two police officers, one in the back and one in the front. The car skidded. It was doing about 80 m.p.h. to get there. It crashed into a tree, and the policeman sitting in the back unfortunately was killed. Under the Regulations now proposed by the Home Secretary, his widow is not entitled to benefit. Had they arrived on the scene and the criminal, in the course of doing his stuff, killed one of the policemen—my friend—the widow would have been entitled to it.
The Home Secretary cannot say to men and women of this House, who have years of experience in negotiations of all kinds, "I will now go in for a comprehensive review." This is an insult to our intelligence. He says that his Department—it matters not whether it is the right hon. Gentleman or anybody else; he is head of the Department—has been discussing the matter for three years. He comes to us with this washy argument about deferring it for three years. It is either right now or it is not right.
What has the argument about the firemen to do with it? The argument was used not so many years ago that the policemen could not be given an increase in salary because the firemen would demand one. On that basis, the policemen would never be given a decent salary increase. I ask the Home Secretary to believe that the firemen have arguments in their own right and will argue them. It does not matter whether what the right hon. Gentleman is doing sets a precedent. It is a question of whether it is right for the policemen.
I say this, I hope, without too much emotion. I am a little sick and tired of the way the House of Commons fails to protect many of our policemen. It is always the first to give headlines to the Challenors and those who may be bad, but the vast majority are ignored and taken for granted. The public are


cowards, too. They are the first to ask for the aid of the police but the first to deny the policeman help when he needs it.
Too many of the police carry far too much. The Home Secretary knows better than anyone that large numbers of the police are leaving, because it is not all that good to work for the police or to go out at 2 or 3 o'clock in the morning with thuggery today.
When we come into the House of Commons, we ask for piffling shillings for a principle which is right and we are given this ridiculous argument. I respect the Conservatives who have spoken; what they have said is to their credit. Let the House of Commons prove itself just once in a while. We are not worried about Whips, on either side. Let us say tonight that we think that a certain principle is right and, if there is a vote, vote for what we believe to be right. There is no party political argument about this and no question of gaining votes. I do not know what it will add up to at the end of the day.
I believe that deep down the Home Secretary is the sort of man who wants to do the right thing, but he has the capacity of doing it at the wrong time. I ask him to say that he understands and respects what has been said and will now discuss the matter with the Police Federation and agree with it in general terms.
The right hon. Gentleman has no trade union sense. One never discusses this, that or the other with the other side unless at the end of the day one is sure that one will get general agreement. One does not say, "This is what you have got to take", because that gets the worst out of anybody on the other side. I urge the Home Secretary to take the Regulations back, discuss them with the Federation and agree the matter in general terms, and he will earn the respect of the House.

11.34 p.m.

Mr. Philip Goodhart: I am sure that the hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) struck a responsive chord, certainly on this side of the House, when he remarked that the House as a whole has sometimes been lacking in the way it has backed up the police in some of the more difficult

duties they have had to carry out in recent years.
The Government have an admirable record in improving the conditions for the police and their families. Therefore, I regret all the more that this limited but irritating issue should have come before us this evening, because I myself am rather doubtful about the relevance of the comprehensive review which has been offered.
Of course, if we are to have special payments for people doing special forms of duty, and to the widows of those who are killed doing special forms of duty, there are bound to be anomalies. One cannot escape it. I cannot see that any review, however comprehensive it may be, can avoid anomalies altogether. The question merely is where one draws the line, and it does seem to me very difficult indeed to argue that a policeman who is killed while in pursuit of a getaway car is doing anything different in kind from a policeman who is shot by a gunman. At the same time, it seems to me very difficult to understand how it was possible for these negotiations to have dragged on for some three years.
So it is with great regret that, unless my right hon. Friend can be rather more forthcoming than he has been so far, I shall find it very difficult to support him in the Lobbies this evening.

11.36 p.m.

Mr. Brooke: I might not yield to the Opposition, but I will certainly yield to the House. May I say at the outset how grateful I am to the hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish), not for his kind personal references about me but, much more important, for his observations about the police. This House of Commons can give enormous help to the police and to the cause of law and order if we will make it perfectly clear that we do not allow our opinion of the police service as a whole to be prejudiced by the failings of a tiny percentage of policemen. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear hear."] I should like those cheers to be heard by ordinary constables all round the country, because I have been aware that a certain number of people in the police, reading the newspapers, have got the impression that the House of Commons has lost confidence in them, and I am convinced that that is not the case.
From listening to this debate, it is perfectly clear to me that the House desires this definition widened, and in the circumstances I think it is my duty to do that. Now I cannot, for reasons which I am sure both sides will appreciate, do that overnight. These matters are discussed in the Police Council. I cannot take it upon myself to speak at a moment's notice for the official side, on which, as I said, the Home Office is in the minority. What I would like to suggest is that, in giving my pledge that this definition must be widened, the House could, as I think I could reasonably ask, pass these Regulations tonight, because there is nothing in them which anybody wishes to take away from. I am giving a firm pledge that as soon as possible—[HON. MEMBERS: "When?"] I cannot say precisely when, because this must be discussed with the official side and with the Police Council.

Mr. A. Lewis: Before the Summer Recess?

Mr. Brooke: That is what I would like to do, but obviously it depends upon the Police Council. What I am anxious about is that nobody should lose by all this. As far as I understand, and I have listened to the speech of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), there is nothing he wants taken away from these Regulations. So far as I am aware, everybody wants the whole content of these Regulations to be in force at the earliest possible moment. What is also desired on both sides of the House is that as soon as possible a further regulation should be brought in which will further widen the definition.
That is the suggestion that I make to the House, and I make it in all good faith, having accepted what seemed to me to be the opinion that this was not a party matter but that the House as a whole was asking me to do this. If we cannot get forward with these Regulations, which in themselves, so far as they go, are completely agreed, I should feel that the House was not treating the police quite as favourably as it should. That is what I feel, but I am in the hands of the House in this matter. What I am anxious to do is to get on, and I am certain that those who appreciate the position in which I am vis-à-vis the Police Council know that I cannot give any

pledge on behalf of the official side or the Police Council across the Floor of the House.

Mr. George Brown: We understand the mood in which the right hon. Gentleman is now speaking. The issue really is whether he thinks he can promise the House to re-lay the Regulations in the sense in which the House certainly wants it before we rise for the Summer Recess. That really means within the next month. If the right hon. Gentleman says, as I understood him just now to say, that he is not sure that he can, he puts the whole House in tremendous difficulty, because we do not want it as it stands. He must tell us "Yes, I will relay it before we rise." If he could say that, then I think we should probably help him in his trouble tonight.

Mr. Cole: As an alternative to that—I appreciate my right hon. Friend's difficulties and want to avoid the House being divided about this—would he promise that any widening of the definition will be made retrospective to 1st August, the date this Regulation comes into force?

Mr. Brooke: I hope I can do better than that. The suggestion that I am making—I am trying to respond to everything that has been said on both sides; I think hon. Members will give me credit for that—is that what I would like to do would be to bring forward an amending regulation in this Parliament, and I will do that if everybody will help me to do so. I cannot do it single-handed, and the House must accept that I cannot; but if everybody will help me to do it, I will do it. I would suggest in these circumstances that the simple and straightforward thing would be, that having been said by me, to pass these Regulations tonight and then to add, before the end of this Parliament, a further regulation which will meet the point which has been raised on both sides of the House.

Mr. Callaghan: If I might interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, what he says goes a long way towards meeting the wish of the House. He knows all the arguments on this, I am sure, by now. Is it in his mind that he will be able to put a draft Regulation before the Federation, knowing its mind as fully as he does, that he thinks is likely to satisfy it? He knows that there is no more


to be said on the subject. If he thinks he will be able to widen the discretion in that way, and he knows the limits to which the Federation is ready to go, I see every reason why we should allow the Regulations to pass with his undertaking to lay an amending Regulation before we rise.

Mr. Brooke: That is exactly what I intend to do. I think I understand the Federation's point of view. I have put forward frankly to the House the difficulties which I see in the form of words which the Federation has suggested, but let us get together and try to reach agreement on this before the end of this month, and then I very much trust that the hon. Member for Bermondsey will no longer say that I do not know how to do the right thing at the right time.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Police Pensions (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations, 1964, a draft of which was laid before this House on 18th June, be approved.

SUNDAY CINEMATOGRAPH ENTERTAINMENTS

Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act 1932 to the Urban District of Street [copy laid before the House, 22nd June], approved.—[Mr. Woodhouse.]

RETIREMENT PENSIONERS (NATIONAL ASSISTANCE)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Finlay.]

11.45 p.m.

Mr. James Griffiths: I welcome this opportunity to raise a very important problem in the treatment of old people under our National Insurance structure. I raised it in Questions to the Minister on 22nd June.
Two facts are becoming increasingly clear. First, a number of old people are eking out existence on less income than the scales provided by the National Assistance Board. Secondly, for some reason or another—either ignorance of the provision available to them on application

or reluctance to apply—they are not getting the help to which they are entitled.
It is our duty—and I include all right hon. and hon. Members, the Minister himself and the National Assistance Board—to find out how many old people are living in dire poverty on incomes less than the minimum laid down by us through the Board. Having done so, it is also our responsibility to find out why they do not apply for assistance so that we may take steps to ensure that no one lives at an income below even the subsistence level provided by the Board.
I raise the matter at this time because a number of investigations have been carried out by competent and responsible people working for important institutions. Their conclusions are much the same. An investigation published as "The Economic Circumstances of Old People" has been carried out by the Department of Applied Economics of Cambridge University, under the leadership of Mrs. Cole-Wedderburn. All these investigations used modern survey techniques.
They concluded that 750,000 old people are living on incomes below the level provided by the scales of the National Assistance Board. The Minister made a reference to the survey carried out by Cambridge in reply to supplementary questions on 22nd June. He will know that those who carried it out are responsible people. They are concerned about the implications of some of the things he said. I will mention two of those things, but I will not go into detail tonight. Mrs. Cole-Wedderburn has written to The Times, and I believe she has corresponded with the right hon. Gentleman. Certainly she has written to the Chairman of the National Assistance Board.
In carrying out these surveys, the researchers, in seeking information, agreed to treat it as confidential. But now there is concern among them—perhaps wrongly, for we know that the right hon. Gentleman is a man of honour—that some of the remarks he made on 22nd June seemed to imply that they have given the names and addresses of people who gave them information in confidence. This is a matter of very great importance in this work, because such inquiries are done on the basis that information given is treated as


confidential. I am sure that the Minister will have read the correspondence in The Times and will have seen a copy of the letter sent to the Chairman of the National Assistance Board.
In addition to that survey, two other opinions have been expressed—I put them no higher than opinions at the moment—about the number of people in this category. There was a very well informed article in The Times by that newspaper's correspondent, who gave it as his opinion that there might be even a million old people whose incomes were less than the scales provided by the Board. The Minister will have seen also the article in the Observer last Sunday by Mr. Jeremy Tunstall, which, I understand, was based on a survey to be published in the magazine "Twentieth Century". He offered it as his opinion that there might be 600,000. So here are three responsible and well-informed students of our social insurance services, giving estimates of between 500,000 and 1 million.
The Minister and the Board owe it to the country to conduct their own survey. I am sure that the Minister will not say that he cannot do so, because there is a Social Survey Department for which the country pays and whose job it is to conduct surveys of this kind, and we also have the Central Office of Information. These private investigations show that there may be 500,000 or 600,000 or even a million people living in dire poverty in this way, and I plead with the Minister to make his own investigations.
Whatever the number, no one will deny that there are old people living in dire poverty who could get assistance from the Board and who do not get it, either because they are unaware that they can get it or, being aware, are reluctant to ask for it. This is the second problem. The National Assistance Board was set up in its present form in 1948 when, among others, it took over many functions of the old public assistance authorities. All of us with experience of it have nothing but the highest praise for the way in which the officers of the Board's local offices do their work, but the fact remains that there is something radically deficient in our arrangements. We are not finding these old people who eke out an existence in dire poverty in this year 1964.
Mr. Tunstall provided us with a challenge in his well-informed and well reasoned article when he said that there was a psychological barrier between these old people and the Board which, for all its efforts, the Board had not so far been able to penetrate. We know that there are old people living in dire poverty whom we are not finding. What are we to do about this problem? I know all the steps which have been taken. We now call it a supplementary pension. I know that the right hon. Gentleman is providing every person who qualifies for a retirement pension with a leaflet which sets out how to apply for assistance, the scales of assistance, and the conditions under which assistance can be obtained. Every step in that direction is welcome, and I welcome it most warmly, but that is not enough.
We must have a radical reappraisal of the future of the National Assistance Board. We ought now to carry out this work of social insurance and National Assistance from the same place. The fact that there is a separate National Assistance Office is itself a barrier to overcoming the problem. This is an Adjournment debate and so I am not able to put forward what I think ought to be done by way of legislation. I therefore go no further than saying that we cannot leave the matter where it is.
We have been given these various estimates of the numbers involved. The public are becoming deeply concerned about this matter. I am sure that every Minister—and I was one myself some time ago—will pay tribute to the fine work done by the students who carry out these surveys in an effort to discover the weaknesses, not only in the legislative action that we take, but in the way in which we organise these things. They are all convinced that something is lacking. We have to find out what it is. Why is it that we are not able to discover just how many old people are living in dire poverty? Why are we not able to discover why they will not go to the National Assistance Board?
I ask the Minister to use the resources available to him in his Ministry, in the National Assistance Board, and in the social survey departments of the Central Office of Information, to carry out an investigation into this matter.


The right hon. Gentleman owes it to the House and to the country to carry out such an inquiry and to let us have an estimate; of the number of old people who are living in dire poverty. His second duty is to discover the barriers which stop these old people from receiving the assistance which they so badly need, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will carry out those investigations as a result of my plea tonight.

The Minister of Pensions and National Insurance (Mr. Richard Wood): The right hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) has expressed concern—indeed, it has been expressed by a number of people recently—that there are a large number of people who are eligible for National Assistance, but who, for one reason or another, are not willing to apply for it.
I have no possible charge against the right hon. Gentleman for his speech tonight, but the suggestion, to which I have just referred, is occasionally accompanied by the suggestion—which, I hope, the right hon. Gentleman will agree is deplorable—that some people do not apply for help from the National Assistance Board because it involves a stigma or humiliation.
I am sorry to say that that charge is sometimes made by people who should know better, and I am particularly sad that in the booklet "New Frontiers for Social Security"—which, incidentally, gives the right hon. Gentleman a most honourable mention—there are references in derogatory terms to National Assistance.
I am particularly concerned about this, because if influential people, and an important political party, suggest that recourse to the National Assistance Board sometimes involves distress or humiliation, it is hardly surprising if some people become reluctant to apply, and there is a real danger that pensioners who need help may come to feel that they ought to avoid availing themselves of the help which the National Assistance Board can give, and is only too ready to give.
Apart from this, I seriously suggest that this is a dangerous game for any party to play. One of the proposals of the

Labour Party, as I understand it, is to institute an income guarantee. This is not the time or the place to examine that proposal, but I understand that under it the National Assistance Board would still be necessary, both for those who came within the scope of the income guarantee, but perhaps had high rents which would have to be supplemented, and for those to whom the income guarantee would not apply, such as the sick. For such groups as these the National Assistance Board would still be necessary.
But the suggestions in this booklet, and the suggestions I have heard on other occasions—that recourse to National Assistance somehow involves shame or stigma—must surely deepen the shame or stigma of those who will have to apply in the future. The right hon. Gentleman reminded us, if we needed reminding—which I do not—that he played an important part, although he said it rather more modestly, in the post-war Government in initiating the present arrangements under which the National Assistance Board does its work. I have been very fortunate, during the last few months, to have very close contact—as any Minister of Pensions must—with the Board, and I cannot speak too highly of the sympathetic understanding and kindness of all its officials. I am glad to say that my opinion is corroborated by many people whom the Board has helped.
I am also glad to find that Mrs. Cole-Wedderburn, in her survey, says:
The overwhelming impression which we gained from the people who were actually receiving National Assistance was one of satisfaction with the way that the system was administered.
People like this, who have been helped by the Board, certainly do not talk in terms of humiliation. They regard the Board's services in the same way as many other services which are provided by central Government or local government, of which some make use and others do not. But it is the excellence of the Board's arrangements and the kind efficiency of its performance which make me anxious, as the right hon. Gentleman is anxious, that large numbers of people who need it shall not deny themselves this service.
I want to refer, as the right hon. Gentleman did, to the work that Mrs. Cole-Wedderburn has done, and I want to take the opportunity of correcting what seem to have been two misapprehensions arising from what I said to the right hon. Gentleman in answer to his Questions of 22nd June. One statement was that
Some of the cases were subsequently investigated
which led to a misunderstanding, and the other was that
those concerned did not qualify because of capital and other resources."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd June, 1964; Vol. 697, c. 16.]
I had no intention of suggesting, and I do not want to suggest, that there was the least breach of confidence in the course of Mrs. Cole-Wedderburn's investigations. I was also aware that, after her interviewers had talked to over 1,000 people, 21 out of the 58 people that the interviewers thought eligible made application to the National Assistance Board, and that 18 of those were subsequently found eligible for a supplementary grant. If there has been any misunderstanding I apologise to Mrs. Cole-Wedderburn. It was not intended.
But the right hon. Gentleman made clear that Mrs. Cole-Wedderburn's work has been called in aid in support of far larger estimates of people not applying for National Assistance—far larger estimates than are justified on the figures that she produced; and it is claimed that those not applying are in need of assistance or are suffering actual hardship. This is very important. I think that this is hard to sustain on the basis of the survey which she made.
Apart from the 18 cases which I mentioned just now, there were a number of people who, as a result of the interviews, seemed to be entitled to assistance, but all of those had either income or capital which the National Assistance Board would disregard, or were sharing a home with others. The point that I am, therefore, trying to make is that many people may have a theoretical entitlement to National Assistance, but that this does not necessarily mean that they are in need. It does not necessarily mean that they are suffering hardship, and certainly it does not mean that they are necessarily in dire poverty, to use the right hon. Gentleman's words.
Let me take someone living with a son or a daughter. Under the National Assistance Regulations he or she is assumed to be contributing a proportionate share of the rent. Suppose that the son, and possibly his wife as well, is taking home good wages. I would feel it quite likely that the son would probably try to dissuade his father or mother from any thought of contributing towards the rent and claiming perhaps a few shillings in National Assistance.
There is nothing the least wrong with that situation. We all know that parents do a very great deal for their children, and a number of children later want to help their parents. But, in fact, an aged parent, in a case of this kind, goes down in the statistics as being eligible for National Assistance and not receiving it. I say that to try to elucidate that not everyone eligible for National Assistance is necessarily in what we would call need—certainly not in dire poverty.
Much has happened since Mrs. Cole-Wedderburn undertook her survey. The scale rates of the National Assistance Board have been substantially increased and there has been, as I pointed out to the right hon. Gentleman the other day, a development of the Board's public activities. The Board has taken various steps to make better known the service that it offers.
On the National Insurance side—my own responsibility—I recently, as I announced to the House, took a further step by inserting a special leaflet into retirement pension order books to try to ease the path into National Assistance for those possibly reluctant to apply. I am quite convinced, as I said the other day, that it was right to concentrate on and to give the first priority to these positive measures, which are aimed at encouraging people to make application to the Board.
I explained to the right hon. Gentleman on 22nd June some of the difficulties of an inqury—and the hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) also asked me a Question about it—which would involve asking many old people to disclose their circumstances, without any probability of their getting benefit from it. Another factor I had in mind at that time was what I call the "non-statistical" evidence, or, indeed, the lack of it, because the


lack of this evidence seemed to me to argue strongly against the existence of large numbers of people eligible for National Assistance who are suffering hardship and yet are reluctant to apply.
For if these large numbers existed it is really difficult to believe that social workers and others in close touch with them would not have drawn our attention to a good many actual cases. It is also significant that from time to time, particularly when the Board has given special publicity to what it can do and would like to do in the future, an analysis of the new applications apparently resulting from the publicity that the Board has undertaken rarely brings to light a case of someone in real poverty, hitherto struggling on because of reluctance to come to the Board.
Again, I do not know whether my own constituency experience in the last decade has been typical—indeed, it may not be worth much—but I certainly have found a diminishing reluctance and a greater willingness to approach the Board than in the years just after the last war. In spite of all this "non-statistical" evidence, which certainly appears to me to point in the opposite direction—against the existence of these large numbers—suggestions that there are large numbers not applying for assistance continue to be made; and the right hon. Member for Llanelly based his speech on this supposition.
It is necessary, therefore, to balance what I described the other day as the difficulties of an inquiry against the need to collect sufficient evidence from which agreed conclusions, which we should all accept, could be drawn. As I see it, the Government have an obvious interest in getting all the information they can about the needs of old people. There are certainly a great many old people and, of course, they are gradually increasing in number. All Governments in a civilised society must rightly attach great importance to their well-being. This to me means paying attention not only to financial needs, but also to needs such as special housing and hospital care.
As the House may know—it was made public some time ago—the National Corporation for the Care of Old People, in co-operation with the Government

Departments concerned, has worked out plans for a pilot survey to find out more about those needs. A comparable inquiry into the National Assistance sector, which we are discussing, would not only yield information about the numbers of people eligible but not applying: a good deal of evidence would probably also emerge which would assist the National Assistance Board's administration and might, perhaps, enable it to make further improvements in its service to the public.
What I have had to do, therefore, is to try to weigh these real advantages against the disadvantages, which I have expressed before to the right hon. Gentleman. Having weighed them against one another, I have decided that it would be right to institute an inquiry. I believe that such an inquiry would be the most effective as well as the speediest method of removing such doubt as still exists, and that it would be of lasting value to the National Assistance Board and the Government in trying to direct help where the need is greatest.

12.13 a.m.

Miss Margaret Herbison: I am very grateful that the Minister has finally decided to carry out this inquiry. The speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths), in which he quoted the views of people who are most reputable in this field, as well as the opinions of those who have done a great deal of work for the elderly, showed that there is much concern in the country about old people who do not apply for National Assistance.
Although there is less reluctance on the part of old people to apply, I am sure that the Minister is still finding old people in his constituency who either do not know—and they are few in number—or who do know but who are reluctant to seek assistance. Only yesterday I received a letter from a woman of 74 who lives in my constituency. I will be calling on her next Saturday and I will do as I always do in such cases; tell her what the National Assistance Board can do, how kind the officers are when they call to see her and how they will try to help her to get over what she still feels is a stigma and, perhaps, a kind of disgrace.
It is up to all of us to try to get rid of this idea and I am sure that the vast


majority of hon. Members are doing it. Again, I say how pleased my hon. Friends and I are at the decision of the Minister to carry out this inquiry.

Mr. J. Griffiths: I, too, would like to offer my thanks to the Minister. He is

right to have decided to hold this inquiry. I am sure that it will be thoroughly done and that it will be rendering a service to the community.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at a quarter past Twelve o'clock.